Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #1  
Old 11-08-2008, 08:44 AM
Linda in NY's Avatar
Linda in NY Linda in NY is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-24-06
Location: Western NY
Posts: 1,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Mandatory Service for 18 - 25 Year Olds

Just found this article, does this mean anyone in these age groups would be required by the New U.S. Government to serve ??

Doesn't matter to me, I'm way over 25 LOL ! And I already served in the Military and did alot of volunteer work with a volunteer ambulance service in the 1980s as well as paid work.

I was just wondering if I'm reading this right. If it's true, how long would it take for the government to implement something like this ?

Here's the link..........

Link from some Civil Liberties site about Mandatory Service and Basic training

Linda
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #2  
Old 11-08-2008, 08:50 AM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Hell, they might as well make voting in this pathetic system mandatory as well, while they're at it.
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-08-2008, 09:11 AM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
You know.. there are lots of things I like about this American political and economic system, but I hardly ever mention them because the bad things about the system are so bad, that they negate them.
 
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-08-2008, 10:43 AM
Franc Tireur Franc Tireur is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
It can work only if it is a volunteer service, where volunteers are retrained on regular basic.

The civilian service is just ridiculous because when you do your time, you are still eligible for decades. However, techniques, and tactics may change or may no longer be efficient.
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-08-2008, 01:14 PM
Linda in NY's Avatar
Linda in NY Linda in NY is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-24-06
Location: Western NY
Posts: 1,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Elements View Post
It can work only if it is a volunteer service, where volunteers are retrained on regular basic.

The civilian service is just ridiculous because when you do your time, you are still eligible for decades. However, techniques, and tactics may change or may no longer be efficient.
I think the word mandatory takes volunteer out of the equation. But I could be wrong on that.
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-08-2008, 02:53 PM
FocalPoint's Avatar
FocalPoint FocalPoint is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 10-26-08
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Ther go those "Sunshine patriots"...you know...the young Republicans..."you talkin' to me?".....
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-09-2008, 08:06 PM
homebizseo's Avatar
homebizseo homebizseo is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 04-21-08
Posts: 1,629
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Everyone should join the military after reaching 18.
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-09-2008, 08:10 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebizseo View Post
Everyone should join the military after reaching 18.
I'm not so sure it's such a good idea to train all the males in a society to kill other humans at the age of 18, not to mention all the females as well.
 
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-09-2008, 11:22 PM
homebizseo's Avatar
homebizseo homebizseo is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 04-21-08
Posts: 1,629
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atom View Post
I'm not so sure it's such a good idea to train all the males in a society to kill other humans at the age of 18, not to mention all the females as well.
They can learn more than just to kill. Those not entering college would learn a trade. Those entering college could just go through boot camp before college and just think about how well the United States could be prepared for natural disasters.
 
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-10-2008, 09:11 AM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebizseo View Post
They can learn more than just to kill. Those not entering college would learn a trade. Those entering college could just go through boot camp before college and just think about how well the United States could be prepared for natural disasters.
Good points. I suppose what really bothers me is countries needing to have a military at all.

Last edited by Atom; 11-10-2008 at 09:16 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-10-2008, 02:12 PM
robmac's Avatar
robmac robmac is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-28-07
Posts: 393
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atom View Post
Good points. I suppose what really bothers me is countries needing to have a military at all.
Atom: I think perhaps the age for military call up should be 54 / 55 and they have to searve ont he front line
 
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-10-2008, 05:06 PM
krahmaan krahmaan is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: 08-24-07
Location: LA County, California
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda in NY View Post
Just found this article, does this mean anyone in these age groups would be required by the New U.S. Government to serve ??

Doesn't matter to me, I'm way over 25 LOL ! And I already served in the Military and did alot of volunteer work with a volunteer ambulance service in the 1980s as well as paid work.

I was just wondering if I'm reading this right. If it's true, how long would it take for the government to implement something like this ?

Here's the link..........

Link from some Civil Liberties site about Mandatory Service and Basic training

Linda
From what I read, I think this is trying to serve as training (only 3 months) for those who wouldn't be able to protect themselves in a war crisis on home soil. Say, if terrorists were running ramped in the streets shooting people. This training would help most from just 'curling up in a ball'.

Too bad they didn't have this when I was 25. I would of been like "Where do I sign up?!" It would have been fun. 3 months free training? I know it takes years to master the martial arts, because there are things a true master won't teach. Only special disciples can learn the real secrets.

But this seems that the 'government' will be sharing some of their tactics with the youth -I know that'll be fun. And just think of all the 'fine and in shape' HoT women you'd meet. 3 months free, oh man I wonder if they'll take 35 year olds? I'm only 31 but if this passes in the next few years I'll sign up quick!

Tell the saps to stay at home. I must say again that it's only for 3 months? They must be jam packing the training with a phenomenal regimen! Martial arts can be learned in a short time, based on the strength training, the teacher and the style. So I bet those kids will be learning some good stuff. Yeah, tell the saps to stay at home!
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-10-2008, 06:10 PM
Harveyj's Avatar
Harveyj Harveyj is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-03-08
Location: Sydney
Posts: 418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
It's NOT MANDATORY!!!

FFS, people, do a bit more reading from the actual source, not a 3rd party site.
It's for those that want the tax credit for $4k towards their tertiary education.

And even then, there are arguments for compulsory national service. It does nicely for Singapore. People there seem a fair bit more into helping each other, their community an their country than they do in the States (from what I've seen).

Atom: Nothing wrong with compulsory voting. We've got it down under. Helps keep the bastards a bit more honest, and it also means you can't truly say that the Government doesn't reflect the will of the country, because everyone had a chance to have their vote.
 
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-10-2008, 06:17 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harveyj View Post
(...) Atom: Nothing wrong with compulsory voting. We've got it down under. Helps keep the bastards a bit more honest, and it also means you can't truly say that the Government doesn't reflect the will of the country, because everyone had a chance to have their vote.
How many candidates are there to choose from for the highest office in OZ?
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-12-2008, 06:33 PM
Harveyj's Avatar
Harveyj Harveyj is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-03-08
Location: Sydney
Posts: 418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
We don't vote for our leaders directly, because technically speaking, they have no power.
The parties decide on their own heads, because the various ministers are meant to come up with their own policies, in conjunction with their public servants (who are not voted in, but rather are rather meant to be non-partisan assistants to that position/office. They're meant to be experts in their field.), and then those policies are adopted by the party as a whole. Prime Minsters are really there as a figurehead for the party they represent, and not meant to be policy makers... Although Howard (our previous Prime Minster) pretty much totally disregarded that...
Our system is based on the Westminster system, like in Britain.

With that said, we have three major parties, two of which are in a coalition ("The Liberal Party" & the "Nationals" party which are basically our Republicans. They lost the last election).
We have two more "sub-major" parties (as in they command a large amount of the popular vote, but rarely get seats), the Greens and the Democrats. Then there are registered 21 minor parties, which generally campaign on specific issues (Groups like Democratic Labour (They're actually literally the Communist party), Shooters Party )closest thing we have to the NRA) and One Nation (the KKK), and can really only hope to get into government via a coalition with another minor party, or by acting as the balance of power with the near majority major party...
Which is what one of our minor parties (Family First) is doing right now, and trying to cram "clean feed" internet down our throat for it, although it looks ultimately destined to fail.

The whole idea being that one can't be the leader of a country if you don't actually have the backing of your own government.

That said, large chunks of our populace that AREN'T informed still continue to vote based on who leads the party to the election.
However, that doesn't really matter, as we have a VERY large contingent of swinging voters, who one assumes bother to inform themselves of the issues to some extent.
Monash U puts the figure on swinging voters as high as 19% of the population... which I think makes for a good representational democracy.

Last edited by Harveyj; 11-12-2008 at 06:37 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-12-2008, 06:51 PM
Ashley27's Avatar
Ashley27 Ashley27 is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 09-09-08
Location: Canada
Posts: 504
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Compulsory is not a good idea. People should have a choice if they want to do it or not.
 
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-12-2008, 07:16 PM
Atom's Avatar
Atom Atom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 10-12-03
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 32,608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harveyj View Post
We don't vote for our leaders directly, because technically speaking, they have no power.
The parties decide on their own heads, because the various ministers are meant to come up with their own policies, in conjunction with their public servants (who are not voted in, but rather are rather meant to be non-partisan assistants to that position/office. They're meant to be experts in their field.), and then those policies are adopted by the party as a whole. Prime Minsters are really there as a figurehead for the party they represent, and not meant to be policy makers... Although Howard (our previous Prime Minster) pretty much totally disregarded that...
Our system is based on the Westminster system, like in Britain.

With that said, we have three major parties, two of which are in a coalition ("The Liberal Party" & the "Nationals" party which are basically our Republicans. They lost the last election).
We have two more "sub-major" parties (as in they command a large amount of the popular vote, but rarely get seats), the Greens and the Democrats. Then there are registered 21 minor parties, which generally campaign on specific issues (Groups like Democratic Labour (They're actually literally the Communist party), Shooters Party )closest thing we have to the NRA) and One Nation (the KKK), and can really only hope to get into government via a coalition with another minor party, or by acting as the balance of power with the near majority major party...
Which is what one of our minor parties (Family First) is doing right now, and trying to cram "clean feed" internet down our throat for it, although it looks ultimately destined to fail.

The whole idea being that one can't be the leader of a country if you don't actually have the backing of your own government.

That said, large chunks of our populace that AREN'T informed still continue to vote based on who leads the party to the election.
However, that doesn't really matter, as we have a VERY large contingent of swinging voters, who one assumes bother to inform themselves of the issues to some extent.
Monash U puts the figure on swinging voters as high as 19% of the population... which I think makes for a good representational democracy.
Wow! Ok then, I guess I really have been living in a cave. Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated.

Politics has always been confusing to me, I don't know why. I guess it's because I get stuck on a negative attribute of this system and can't seem to get past it, and thus everything that follows is negated to nonsense in my mind. For example, our illustrious Federal Reserve system. Do you have one of those down there or something similar?
 
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-13-2008, 07:05 PM
Harveyj's Avatar
Harveyj Harveyj is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 06-03-08
Location: Sydney
Posts: 418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Once again, yes and no.
We have the "Reserve Bank" which is basically the government's bank: www.rba.gov.au
They pretty much work hand in hand with the Government's treasury department on one hand, and the Prudential Regulation Authority (they keep an eye on financial institutions) on the other.
APRA asks for the RBA for more or less liquidity in the economy as required to keep Treasury's policies working properly. The RBA either agrees or disagrees, based on internal and international market forces and projections.
For instance, there have been times when APRA has made requests for more liquidity in the market (after effects of the "HIH scandal"), but the RBA has declined it.

Anyway, the end effect is that our economy doesn't boom and bust nearly as badly as the US one.
Our financial situation is actually really stable, regardless of what's going on in the stock markets. Per capita, unemployment hasn't massively increased due to the current financial crisis, and our mortgage foreclosure rate isn't nearly as steep as it is in Britain or the US. Luxury markets are still doing very nicely here as well. If people are tightening belts, it would only be at the very low end of the socio-economic scales.
 
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-16-2008, 04:20 PM
pgzn pgzn is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 05-27-08
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
It's not mandatory NOW. The original plan was to make it mandatory. The Marxist found out that the constitution forbids involuntary servitude and changed it on his site to "voluntary" until a loophole can be found.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	obamavolunteer-1a.jpg
Views:	398
Size:	96.7 KB
ID:	8211  
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-17-2008, 01:28 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
regardless of the success or the affection of another country's compulsory national service requirements, that is not our way nor is it accepted easily in our society. That much was proven in the Vietnam War era and the draft.

Requirement of community service in our society has been used and is still used as a disciplinary device for people that break the law. To make it mandatory for all to perform it not only deflates it as an avenue of retribution for those that have broken the law but also imposes criminal penance on people that have not committed crime.

As for the being into helping people being not so apparent to you here in the States, when 9/11 happened, when Katrina happened, whenever any catastrophe happens people of all makes and models from all over the country unite to help their fellow citizens in time of need. The do so out of need and on a voluntary basis. We have services that do so year round under all circumstances, again voluntarily. And the United States is, and has always been one of the largest contributors of financial, personnel, medical, and food aid world wide. We continue to give and the world continues to cry not enough. At some point it becomes disgustingly annoying. It is apparent that other countries that have the resources and ability turn their backs to the rest of the world by offering meager penance in assistance to others then at the same time cry foul when they see other countries not offering enough, I believe the word for such a thing is called hypocrisy but dare ye not declare it.

Just as those that have screamed murder and foul at the top of their lungs for these past 8 years during a time that has shown us the largest economic gain and substantial times in American history until the Change of control in Congress in 2006 which was also the time that the elections for President also began, and it would be impossible for a Democrat to win an election from a party that sat on good times. So it was a necessity for those things especially the economy to be changed. Just as I have always been saying, the proof is now coming to fruition.

And those screaming that Gitmo was not only against the Geneva Convention, an untruth and opposite, as it is the acceptable answer to the requirements of the Geneva convention, and they call for it to be closed and dismantled and those held within be subjects of a civilian court. Obama that had promised to do just that is now entertaining the idea as was stated in the New York Times of all places that he will not be able to close it as it was planned and it is likely he will keep it open. And already those same ones that had damnified Bush and his administration for it's very existence are beginning already to defend the Obama up coming administration's considerations for keeping it in place. Again, I find this to be what is called hypocrisy but dare ye not say it.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How Many Five Year Olds Could You Take In A Fight grishamist Forum Lobby 11 11-12-2008 03:17 AM
How many five year olds could you take in a fight? suzjor Forum Lobby 40 11-11-2008 02:48 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC