| May 28th, 2004 11:47 PM |
| ranxer |
blanco
Quote:
|
If Snopes discredits a false story, how is that diffusing interest in government corruption? where is that trend?
|
i'm saying that i don't trust snopes as a source of valid information.
i also suspect the draft(actual, not mystery) is a possible problem for people that might be trying to take back their democratic rights in a job loosing economy and may be a weapon of mass distraction.
Quote:
|
So, you have no real idea what you are talking about. You just attacked and committed libel against someone who doesn't support your position.
|
Libel?! bwhaha, for having an opinion?! i made an acusation that may or may not prove true.
we know from many sources..
a. that the draft boards have been repopulated for the first time in 30 years.
b. soldier re-enlistment is low.
c. time of service requirements are way up.. thousands of soldiers are being kept active in iraq passed thier assignment end dates.
why wouldnt a real attempt at the draft be made?
Quote:
|
Whats next, Che, line them up against a wall and shoot them for being counter revolutionary?
|
I'm almost a pacifist, there's a lot of room to disagree without anyone getting hurt in 'my' world.
Quote:
|
Why send all of your brightest citizens out to get shot instead of the low lives?
|
you can rest assured that if you're making over 300k you won't have to send your children to war. i'm guessing at the number but lots of folks will be shocked that they are being fed to the shredder when it comes.
|
| May 28th, 2004 04:23 PM |
| AChimp |
Quote:
|
College and Canada will not be options.
|
If the draft is reinstated, it will be interesting to see whether or not this will be the case. Why send all of your brightest citizens out to get shot instead of the low lives?
Canada is also in the middle of deciding whether or not the grant refugee status to two American soldiers who deserted their units to avoid fighting in Iraq. If we end up granting protection to deserters, then you can probably be assured that we will ignore any previous "agreements" made on the subject.
|
| May 28th, 2004 03:37 PM |
| kellychaos |
I really don't think that you have to worry about the draft, Commander Fatass.
|
| May 28th, 2004 12:03 PM |
| VinceZeb |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranxer
snopes is suspected of helping the draft pass by diffusing attention.
snopes should be completly discredited on major issues if they prove wrong on this.
|
The gold-standard for myth verification should be discredited if they are wrong on this?
Is there enough room in your bizarro world for you with the sky falling as much as it does? I'm guessing the key to your kingdom is one part extreme liberal paranoia mixed with one part glue huffing.
|
| May 27th, 2004 06:13 PM |
| Brandon |
SNOPES IS IN ON THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY. 
|
| May 27th, 2004 06:08 PM |
| El Blanco |
Quote:
|
alright.. i must admit that ONE story wrong is a bit much for complete flushing, but, i've seen other snopes info in the past that diffused interest in government corruption and think its a trend worth noting. getting to the bottom of it to 'discredit' them is wishful thinking right now.
|
Please back that up. If Snopes discredits a false story, how is that diffusing interest in government corruption? where is that trend?
Quote:
|
i didn't do any homework on the draft resolutions yet but doubt the diffusions of concern for various reasons.
|
So, you have no real idea what you are talking about. You just attacked and committed libel against someone who doesn't support your position. Whats next, Che, line them up against a wall and shoot them for being counter revolutionary?
|
| May 27th, 2004 06:02 PM |
| ziggytrix |
I'm sorry, but on a thing as big as a reinstitution of the draft, I'd agree. If snopes is totally off on this (which I doubt) it would severely damage the credibilty of the site for me.
|
| May 27th, 2004 05:37 PM |
| ranxer |
blanco
Quote:
|
So, if a source has one story wrong, it is completly discredited? I guess we won't see anymore IndyMedia articles from you.
|
alright.. i must admit that ONE story wrong is a bit much for complete flushing, but, i've seen other snopes info in the past that diffused interest in government corruption and think its a trend worth noting. getting to the bottom of it to 'discredit' them is wishful thinking right now.
and the same goes for indymedia. indy is made up of volunteers and has open publishing access to anyone that wants to post. one source no references articles should always be suspect. and source checking should be routine. i didn't do any homework on the draft resolutions yet but doubt the diffusions of concern for various reasons.
|
| May 27th, 2004 02:20 PM |
| mesobe |
speaking os snopes, who the fuck is David Mikkelson?
Quote:
|
So did the rumor that searchers found, in the smoking rubble of the Pentagon, an unscathed Bible. "We eventually found out that it was not a Bible, but a dictionary, because we happen to know somebody who works in the Pentagon who actually went and saw it himself," David Mikkelson said.
|
gee.. I have a friend who actually works at the whitehouse and HE said that aliens were really behind the 911 attacks. He spoke to the aliens IN PERSON.
|
| May 27th, 2004 02:15 PM |
| El Blanco |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ranxer
snopes is suspected of helping the draft pass by diffusing attention.
|
By you
Quote:
|
snopes should be completly discredited on major issues if they prove wrong on this.
|
So, if a source has one story wrong, it is completly discredited? I guess we won't see anymore IndyMedia articles from you.
But, hey, we have seen your double standard.
|
| May 27th, 2004 02:02 PM |
| mesobe |
ah the good ole US of A... land of the free!
does this mean more hippies in Canada?
|
| May 27th, 2004 01:55 PM |
| ranxer |
snopes is suspected of helping the draft pass by diffusing attention.
snopes should be completly discredited on major issues if they prove wrong on this.
|
| May 27th, 2004 05:17 AM |
| thebiggameover |
it will never pass....
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp
isn't there a better forum for this?
|
| May 27th, 2004 02:28 AM |
| Comrade Rocket |
CRAP
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...ua_congressorg
Quote:
Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.
The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, 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." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.
College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.
The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.
Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!
Please also contact your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and contact newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.
|
|
Topic Review (Newest First)
