Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Government (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=141)
-   -   Draft is back! 18 to 42 men and women (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=27411)

  • Jun 7, 2006, 05:59 AM
    mr.yet
    DRAFT IS BACK!! 18 TO 42 men and women
    For those who missed the news:

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h109-4752


    109TH CONGRESS
    H. R. 4752
    2D SESSION


    To provide for the common defense by requiring all persons in the United
    States, including women, between the ages of 18 and 42 to 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.
  • Jun 7, 2006, 06:06 AM
    NeedKarma
    Welcome to Canada!
  • Jun 7, 2006, 07:12 AM
    mr.yet
    NeedKarma, you may want to post property rentals in you area!!
  • Jun 7, 2006, 08:47 AM
    NeedKarma
    I had a chance to read the bill and it's about compulsory 2 year military duty for everyone just like they have in many countries in Europe. I didn't get as far as to if your job gets saved for you but I doubt this would go over well with the current consumerism trend in americans: "You mean I have to give up my $150,000/year job to do army stuff????" or "What's gonna happen to my kickass eBay business while I'm away?"
  • Jun 7, 2006, 09:20 AM
    Nez
    My God.If all the guys in the States get drafted,and sent to some backwater,no more Microsoft,Apple,or Google... oh well.. world domination by Linux... now I see a plan... :D
  • Jun 7, 2006, 12:09 PM
    orange
    Women too?? Are women who are caring for children exempt? If a woman is drafted, will the US government pay for child care?
  • Jun 7, 2006, 12:24 PM
    valinors_sorrow
    I have yet to be able to substantiate this as real...
    What I mean by that is "active". The closest I get is several sources, each on opposite sides, saying a politically motivated bill was voted down yesterday 402-2, and it wasn't meant as seriously viable to begin with and then a lot of others sites claiming it was bogus or meant to be. Ah, the Age of Misinformation! :eek:

    http://home.netcom.com/~speaker8/jim..._bill_hoax.htm

    http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=10
  • Jun 7, 2006, 12:48 PM
    mr.yet
    From the Library of Congress

    Universal National Service Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    February 14, 2006


    Link:
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4752.IH:

    CAll Senators and representatives tell to to vote against this.
  • Jun 7, 2006, 01:34 PM
    orange
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow
    I have yet to be able to substantiate this as real...
    What I mean by that is "active". The closest I get is several sources, each on opposite sides, saying a politically motivated bill was voted down yesterday, 402-2, and it wasn't meant as seriously viable to begin with and then a lot of others sites claiming it was bogus or meant to be. Ah, the Age of Misinformation! :eek:

    Phew! I certainly hope you are right that this is NOT true, because otherwise what's going to happen to all the children of women who do military service?
  • Jun 7, 2006, 01:37 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow
    I have yet to be able to substantiate this as real...
    What I mean by that is "active". The closest I get is several sources, each on opposite sides, saying a politically motivated bill was voted down yesterday, 402-2, and it wasn't meant as seriously viable to begin with and then a lot of others sites claiming it was bogus or meant to be. Ah, the Age of Misinformation! :eek:

    The links in this thread are not credible to you?

    Your links:
    http://home.netcom.com/~speaker8/jim..._bill_hoax.htm --> dated October 6, 2004

    http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=10 --> 5 October 2004 (from a site that does not register a domain name)

    I believe this is a different bill.
  • Jun 7, 2006, 01:57 PM
    valinors_sorrow
    Here is what else I found from something fairly credible...

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in647612.shtml

    It just strikes me as old news is all.
  • Jun 7, 2006, 05:19 PM
    CaptainForest
    From what I am reading on this, it sounds like this bill's sponsor tried this once before as well, and failed the first time.

    Strong probability this bill won't be passed.
  • Jun 7, 2006, 06:20 PM
    Jonegy
    Okay - I know it's daft - but if a woman gets pregnant during her service does the subsequent child get 9 months knocked of their mandatory 2 years as having been already served?? :D
  • Aug 20, 2006, 10:22 PM
    jcc5193
    The bill is in committee and will likely remain there. The likliehood of this bill being passed is practically zero. For draft info see www.sss.gov.
  • Aug 21, 2006, 12:18 AM
    Amythest
    All I can say if this goes through can I come move in with you capt'n or karma lol... omg IF I was in service we would all die... I 'd aratehr make someone cookies than shoot them. "panics"

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:02 AM.