|
|
unsui
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 19:49] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Wed, 21 May 2008 10:09]
Cycling is the one sport where a guy can shave his legs, wear spandex and bright colors, and be accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... for the opinion expressed, though I know very little about US law.
But I'd advise caution in spreading it around too widely.
Why? Because in the final analysis the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, and in a Republican-dominated Supreme Court, it wouldn't be too hard for a distinction to be established between military service for Uncle Sam and 'Slavery or Involuntary Servitude'. A juidiciary which is ultimately politically controlled is necessarily subject to political pressures.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought in the USA all one had to do was tell them you were homosexual. Am I wrong?
In the UK I don't think there is compulsory service any more.
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you list that you are homosexual you will recieve an undesirable rating for the draft. If they reinstate the draft two things are going to happen. first, all the people who are being silent now are going to come out of the wood work. You will see a repeat of the Viet Nam protestors. Second, your going to see the population of Canada increase dramaticly.
If you stand for Freedom, but you wont stand for war, then you dont stand for anything worth fighting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 19:49] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unsui
|
|
Likes it here |
Registered: September 2007
Messages: 338
|
|
|
No Message Body
[Updated on: Fri, 24 October 2008 19:48] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Yaeh right.....
As if you wouldnt end up going anyway.....
Give me a f**king break.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
oh
i so agree we dont bring our off spring in to the world to be conned into a war that cannot be won.
i do feel for you
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
When it comes to winning and/or loosing....
Are there ever any winners?
From my study of history there are only the ones that didn't loose as bad as the the ones that lost worse.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... the first of Michael's links has my head spinning! It's the most convincing proof I've yet seen that the United States and the United Kingdom are two nations divided by a common language.
Over here, people are individuals. They are, of course, persons as well, but that doesn't in any way impinge upon their rights as individuals. Bodies corporate (companies, clubs, etc) are also persons in the sense that they can enter into a legal relationship in their own right, rather than in the names of their members - and if they are liable to tax, they pay Corporation Tax rather than Income Tax. And that's pretty much all there is to it. You certainly can't be an individual AND a 'corporate artificial person' - whatever that might be! And in the UK 'municipal' relates only to municipalities, which are an obsolescent concept relation only to local government. And a sovereign state cannot be a corporation, or vice-versa. So I don't understand a word of it!
But what I had in mind was the assumption that (as would be the case under UK law) the government could bring a action against a single draft-avoider, arguing that upon a proper construction of the words, military sevice is, or ought to be regarded as being distinct from slavery or involuntary servitude. (In the UK, the case being taken for the purpose of clarifying the law, the government would obligingly pay the legal costs of both sides.) Eventually the case would chug its way through the system to the House of Lords, or in the US to the Supreme Court. That court would decide the matter for once and for all. Under the UK system, I'd think that there would be at least a possibility that the Court would find for the Government, accepting some sort of argument based on the contention that at the time of the Constitution and relevant Amendment it was inconceivable that the legislators could have intended the words to encompass military service. But obviously things are very different in the US, so I'll shut up!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
There are no winners.
Unhappily, war can't always be avoided; it's sometimes necessary to fight back because you are being attacked. But ultimately all wars are caused by the aggression of individuals, and aggression is never justifiable.
The only area in which I might - or might not - be out on a limb is the situation in Iraq, about which I find myself reluctantly in sympathy with GWB, though not for the same reasdons. It seems to me that as we aggressively invaded a sovereign state, essentially be cause we did not approve of its leadership and it had plenty of oil reserves, and as we went on to make a total mess of the exercise, we do have some sort of obligation to the Iraqi people to restore the damage we have done to their country. Though obviously some Iraquis are Islamic fundamentalists, most are not. We are a multi- (well, not very multi-)national occupying force fighting a multinational extremist movement on Iraqi territory. We owe the ordinary Iraqis big time for our greed and incompetence - or at least for the greed and incompetence displayed in our name. There sure as hell won't be any winners in this war, but that doesn't give us the right to turn our backs upon a disaster for which we are undeniably responsible.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
