Only freeloader losers will vote Obama?

[Pa(b)st Prime]

I REALLY hope you're right. Your argument IS compelling.

Quote from Jayford:

I would say equally as war weary as after Nam. Has nothing to do with BSC. Any company could fail at any time with retarded management imo.

US didn't do anything for quite some time after Nam, and already had a draft in place.

I agree with most of your posts Pabst, but completely disagree on a draft. I believe there is no way Americans change their sentiment on this for many years, short of a direct threat to the US or its allies (as in an actual attack. There are always perceived threats). The US military does not want a draft either. They say the quality of recruits drops dramatically.

If it actually happened years down the road, you can say "told you so", but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this one!

 

[Bigpipn]

Quote from Dr. Zhivodka:

You kid of course but when I was high school I had a job on a dairy farm. The Govi payed him 30K a month to take his milk and they later dumped half of it.

Later they approached him to dump it himself...for a nice payment. Your joke is not new.

I can only wonder what the Florida Sugar industry gets. As long as they vote R right? it's all good.

Spot on brother.

 

[crgarcia]

Quote from Dr. Zhivodka:

My guess is that "lazy freeloaders" were not paying attention in Junior High School when they supposed to be learning the correct usage of "too" verses to.

Productive people -like me- are often too busy.
So, I'm always in a hurry, which caused the typo.

Lazy free loaders are too bored -perhaps unemployed-, so they look for each and every mistake.

 

[Dr. Zhivodka]

You should chill and smell the roses a bit then. There's very little excuse for a too and to mistake. However...you edited it well...why bring it up aging? You were Scott free.

Quote from crgarcia:

Productive people -like me- are often too busy.
So, I'm always in a hurry, which caused the typo.

Lazy free loaders are too bored -perhaps unemployed-, so they look for each and every mistake.

 

[cgroupman]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Check out cgroups post below Doc.

He almost ESTABLISHES the talking points.

*Give a purpose to those young unemployed adults

* Keep crime in check

*Ensure rich white kids ALSO participate in the fighting

*Go after the REAL terrorists

I didn't bother quoting your "sick fucks" comment, just so juvenile.

To your notes above. Since there has been little or no discussions about instituting a draft, I would hardly call any of my comments talking points. Now, the comment about going after the REAL terrorists is just so primary and obvious, so I guess it could be a talking point, nothing to ashamed of there.



c

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Dr. Zhivodka:

There's very little excuse for a too and to mistake. However...you edited it well...why bring it up aging?

aging?

Hey can I join the spelling/grammar Gestapo now TOO (as in also)?

 

[Cutten]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

I REALLY hope you're right. Your argument IS compelling.

The only scenario where the US would start a draft, would be so serious that the entire democratic world would be onside. Brits, Europeans, Aussies etc, maybe even the French, would start volunteering for their national armies in whatever conflict it was, before any Yank gets drafted IMO.

 

[Cutten]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Any more "war weary" than American's who went to Korea just five years after the conclusion of WWll?

Or the 600,000 Americans who went to Vietnam-a country most in the U.S. had never even heard of.

In 1940 70% of Americans said no to war against Germany even AFTER the blitz. 18 months later we were in Europe losing hundreds of thousands of troops.

Traders above ANYONE should realize how quickly sentiment changes. How many people looked at BSC a year ago and thought, "now there's a stock that'll be history nine months from now."

Two phrases:

Pearl Harbour
Cold War

A few rich Saudis on an ego trip doesn't quite pose the same threat.

A draft is possible but ONLY if there is a serious threat to western civilisation. Killing 400 people per annum - less than die in a bad fortnight on the roads - does not qualify as serious.

If and when a true threat appears, all free countries will have more than enough *volunteers* to meet the manpower requirements. It does not take a draft to invade and conquer a pipsqueak like Iran, if they are dumb enough to actually try to acquire nukes and then do more than sabre-rattle. Only China or Russia would require that, and not only is there 0.01% chance of anything involving them, but it would be settled with nukes not an invasion force.

The only circumstances under which the draft would be needed in the next few years, it would not be necessary.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from Cutten:

Two phrases:

Pearl Harbour
Cold War

A few rich Saudis on an ego trip doesn't quite post the same threat.

A draft is possible but ONLY if there is a serious threat to western civilisation. Killing 400 people per annum does not qualify as serious.

Who's talking Saudi?

I'm talking about nuclear Pakistan.

I'm talking about Obama muckraking on the Afghan-Pakistan border and eliciting a military response from Pakistan. The all of Sen. Change's minions can nod their heads "we're fighting the REAL terorists, we're fighting the REAL terrorists".

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from cgroupman:

I didn't bother quoting your "sick fucks" comment, just so juvenile.

If the shoe fits then please quote it.

To your notes above. Since there has been little or no discussions about instituting a draft, I would hardly call any of my comments talking points. Now, the comment about going after the REAL terrorists is just so primary and obvious, so I guess it could be a talking point, nothing to ashamed of there.

Isn't Charlie Rangle Chairman of Ways and Means. A black guy? Pretty powerful eh? No discussion of a draft?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/draf-j12.shtml


c