From: "Rich Gauszka" 

Millions of us give our money and labor - it's called taxes.

It's not Democrats ( I'm not one )  that have embraced bureaucracy lately.
Bush appears to love big government and it's scope in affecting and
intruding on our lives


"Mark"  wrote in message
news:44cae4e0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>I don't think that citizens should be forced into any service (military or
>not), I think good citizens take care of the service aspect to their
>country in a variety of ways (volunteering here and there for this and
>that) with no need for coercion. I think the predication of service as
>administered by a government is reflective of a socialist point-of-view,
>i.e. if it's not "official and government
induced/controlled/coerced" it
>doesn't really count, seems to be the mind-set.
>
> Well, hell, millions of us give of our time, our money, our labor, and our
> thoughts both domestically and abroad with no such coercion, with no
> prodding needed, and the efforts are much more efficient than running them
> through a government mill. Why is it that unless it's measured through the
> Federal government it doesn't count? Why do liberals so embrace the
> bureaucracy?
>
> That the usual suspects here in the US, and without intent to lump you in
> with them unfairly, are so upset with Bush (not to mention the various
> foreign powers) strikes me as good news and reminiscent of how bent out of
> shape so many were about Reagan. In other words, Bush ain't going for the
> usual BS and status quo -- if he were, people would be more at ease and
> thus content in their complacency.
>
> This is not a time for complacency, he understands that.  and how ironic that "many Ambassadors" are unhappy with John Bolton --
> well hell yea, they don't want to upset the status quo either, how sad
> too, that the Dems are more concerned with looking good with those same
> Ambassadors than they are with promoting our interests at the UN>
>
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:44cadd6a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>I was just stating my views on the draft. I'm sure some just want it
>>reinstated for political purposes. I have more of a Heinlein ( starship
>>troopers ) viewpoint on service in that citizenship and it's subsequent
>>rights should be predicated on service ( not necessarily military )
>>
>> Sorry Mark - Many who grasp the severity of the current conflict are also
>> quite worried that this administration has no clue on what to do. Iraq is
>> a mess. Rumsfeld is still debating the civil war question with himself.
>> The current Israel/Lebanon conflict appears to be swelling the ranks of
>> Hezbollah and Bush is under some delusion that 'democracy' there will
>> make everything right.
>>
>>
>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>> news:44cad988$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Eh, I disagree. My take on the efforts of the Dems to get a draft
>>> reinstated is fairly dark. I'm quite sure their underlying motives are
>>> to undermine any military action any where at any time by reinvigorating
>>> and motivating those of a sheep-like protester mind-set who don't have
>>> any regard for reality on the ground.
>>>
>>> I feel that they, the Dems, don't grasp the severity of the current
>>> conflict(s) and that if they are successful in their efforts to stop us
>>> from taking action as necessary, that those efforts would be extremely
>>> dangerous to the very existence of our nation. >> I'm absolutely sure of it>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>>> news:44cad197$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>I always thought ending the draft was a bad idea.  I feel
that having a
>>>>no deferment draft lottery would really make people think about any
>>>>proposed conflict. Right now it just appears too easy to go
to war when
>>>>most don't have to worry about any consequence
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>>> news:44cacba2$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> That's true too, as one aspect anyway. Which is why so
many Dems are
>>>>> pining for reinstating the draft, although their
"ooh we're gonna have
>>>>> a draft" scare ploy prior to the '04 elections
went over like a lead
>>>>> balloon. >>>> are most certainly looking with interest at Israel
calling up 30K
>>>>> reservists and trying to figure how to scare people
here with more
>>>>> success this time -- they'll fail if they do>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Rich Gauszka" 
wrote in message
>>>>> news:44caca0b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:44cac981$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "John Cuccia"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:keflc21vmstll8fhuub7nh5a0ohpq9bjlp{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:52:40 -0400,
"Mark" 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IIRC, the anti-war protestors of
the Vietnam era didn't show up
>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>> single march and then spend the
next few years bragging about how
>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>> of marched and whining that they
weren't listened to.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>number of
>>>>>>>>>them
>>>>>>>>>stayed on the mall permanently after
the first protest>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People protested for years, all over
America.  Some of them even
>>>>>>>> blew
>>>>>>>> things up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which goes to show you, despite the
postulations 'round these parts,
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> people are not really, in any substantial
numbers, against our
>>>>>>> taking out
>>>>>>> the islamo-fascists in the current conflicts.
It's probably a
>>>>>>> function of
>>>>>>> both this being a required war on multiple
fronts, and people
>>>>>>> knowing it is
>>>>>>> because of free flowing information, as
opposed to those in the 60s
>>>>>>> eating
>>>>>>> up whatever old Uncle Walter (and his two
cohorts on the other two
>>>>>>> networks)
>>>>>>> fed them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was a draft back then. People are now
semi-divorced from the
>>>>>> conflict
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5