Slavery To Return ?

[Carne Frio]

It looks like the dems want to bring back involuntary servitude (slavery):

http://www.examiner.com/x-60483-Long-Beach-City-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d26-Slavery-bill-HR-5741-is-now-in-debate

I don't see this as passing congress, but the idea that any elected
official would propose such a thing makes me very angry. Be sure
and V O T E in the next election !

[hogger129]

What do you think tax the working (extort) and give to the "don't want to work" is?

[MagnumFan]

Middle class white folks are the slaves now.

[lentz]

It looks like the dems want to bring back involuntary servitude (slavery):

http://www.examiner.com/x-60483-Long-Beach-City-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d26-Slavery-bill-HR-5741-is-now-in-debate

I don't see this as passing congress, but the idea that any elected
official would propose such a thing makes me very angry. Be sure
and V O T E in the next election !

I don't think it will pass.But I didn't think obama would be elected either.

[Bobitis]

Will this apply to those already sucking my taxes?
Will it be forced upon the illegals?

Who gets to define 'slavery'?

Didn't we abolish it many decades ago?

Seems like 'slavery' is pretty subjective. Kinda like torture.

Billions more sent down the crapper.:rolleyes:

[jack404]

Its all in the fine print and application of that fine print

if they grabbed city kid's and took em to the country , parks service or farm service or emergency service work , that would help to distill a work ethic into those who are lacking in such , could be a good thing

it also get's big infrastructure done cheap and creates skills in folks

if applied and done right ..

but there are problems in this too be careful this is a double bladed weapon

[lentz]

Mandatory is what turns me off. I won't do a damn thing I don't want to

[wpage]

Slavery never left.

[Blackhawk Dave]

Biggest threat to our liberty are the unelected bureaucrats in Washington. They pass regulations and laws with nary a peep from Congress or a challenge in the courts.

It's time to fire half the people working for the Government and eliminate Civil Service protection. If you can't fire the people working in government, it doesn't matter who you elect, since they're not affecting you like the government worker.

[jim brady]

Never a good thing to turn your freedom over and entrust it to a government, even if it's just a little at a time. If you do, you will be a slave and not realize it until you are powerless to free yourself.

Won't be long until these internet sites are shut down. You'd have to be blind not to see that one coming. Too many like us here are talking about it, and that's just too much un-checked power for certain circles to let happen.

I hope that we can restore ourselves thru the ballot box. If not, things could get very ugly. Pray that some nut job doesn't set off this keg of powder we are all sitting on.

[alex.cirabisi]

just gotta say... we have the power to take out who we dont want in power.. not take out as in "whack" but put someone we believe can handle the power... i bet this fired up the local malitia's when they caught wind of this. a civil war with the way the economy is and how the reps and presidents have been isnt an unreal thing... very possible

[Trouble 45-70]

The draft is back. Those on welfare will probably be declared defacto disabled.

[Haligan]

Dude, the 1st 5 min. of the documentary. UNBELIEVABLE ! ! ! This was released in the spring of 2009 ! ! !

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=79959

[belercous]

Uhh, anyone actually read the bill? Sure doesn't sound like it. The bill calls for re-instating what used to be called "The Draft."
Now, Viet Nam ended 5 years before I graduated H.S., and I for one am tickled about the volunteer army and believe that is the way to go. Some of my friends older brothers came back in a horizontal position, so I'm not really in favor of this bill, which will die in committee. It won't see a floor vote, it is political posturing from the left.

However, in the interest of bringing out the truth of the bill, some things to note are;

1. It's the draft. For some strange reason people are not just signing up in droves to be put in harm's way for a war began on false pretenses and not viewed as neccessary, and a war that is not seen as having a visible enemy. Who'da figured?

2. It allows for non-military conscription in support of our troops. (Or should we not provide logistical support for our troops?) This is due to our "privatizing" duties which used to be performed by the Armed Services. Seems like we just can't get good help at a reasonable price when we're in a war and people might get killed. The free market kinda let us down on this one.

3. It only applies in times of war AND requires the President (remember a Democrat won't always hold the office) to delare an emergency.

4. Not everyone, or even close to everyone, will be drafted. Only as many as are needed. It will be done by random selection (a lottery). The acutal number likely would not exceed 1% of the population. We'd have to clothe, house, and feed these people so it wouldn't make sense to overstock.

5. Slavery has not been totally abolished in this country by the Constitution. Anyone here ever actually read the Constitution? Please reference the 13th Amendment. Convicts can be put to hard labor (involuntary servitude).

Now I understand that this is an echo-chamber wherein people don't do much fact-checking on things which support their worldview, but just because one reads something on the interweb, hears it on the radio, sees it on TV, or reads it, does not make it true.
Please check out what I say as well. I'm certain that many here can't wait to discredit me. If only that were true for every bit of information one gets, the level of discourse would be raised immeasurably. It's part of being able to think critically. Try it.

[dbrodin]

Uhh, anyone actually read the bill? Sure doesn't sound like it. The bill calls for re-instating what used to be called "The Draft."
Now, Viet Nam ended 5 years before I graduated H.S., and I for one am tickled about the volunteer army and believe that is the way to go. Some of my friends older brothers came back in a horizontal position, so I'm not really in favor of this bill, which will die in committee. It won't see a floor vote, it is political posturing from the left.

However, in the interest of bringing out the truth of the bill, some things to note are;

1. It's the draft. For some strange reason people are not just signing up in droves to be put in harm's way for a war began on false pretenses and not viewed as neccessary, and a war that is not seen as having a visible enemy. Who'da figured?

That is only one part of it.


2. It allows for non-military conscription in support of our troops. (Or should we not provide logistical support for our troops?) This is due to our "privatizing" duties which used to be performed by the Armed Services. Seems like we just can't get good help at a reasonable price when we're in a war and people might get killed. The free market kinda let us down on this one.

Nothing in the law supports this statement. You are hung up on the "draft" portion of the law. It is not limited to "emergency" roles. It even references the weather service (NOAA) of all things.


3. It only applies in times of war AND requires the President (remember a Democrat won't always hold the office) to delare an emergency.

Again you are hung up on the draft. The war clause only changes the rules from you pick were you go to Uncle Sam picks were you go. Also it's war OR declared emergency, not AND.


4. Not everyone, or even close to everyone, will be drafted. Only as many as are needed. It will be done by random selection (a lottery). The acutal number likely would not exceed 1% of the population. We'd have to clothe, house, and feed these people so it wouldn't make sense to overstock.

SEC. 102. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

(a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.

SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons described in section 102(a) to perform their national service obligation.

No where does it say anything about this being a national emergency contingency program that can be activated at need.

Read the bill HERE (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.5741:). It's fairly short.

[belercous]

Sec. 101, "3) The term ‘national service’ means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security."

Sure sounds like conscription to me. What else is the reason for the bill about if not compulsory service? That's the main purpose of the bill.

Sec. 103, "(2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or"

Says "National Emergency" right there. I never said activated at need, although it would be self-evident that there would presumably be a need, in time of war, if people had to be drafted into national service. Yes, drafted. That's what it would be, or am I missing a fine semantical distinction?

Quote; "Again you are hung up on the draft. The war clause only changes the rules from you pick were you go to Uncle Sam picks were you go. Also it's war OR declared emergency, not AND."

Please reread the bill, it is "and" because sec. 103 states that a "declaration of war is in effect." No "or" follows this language, as such war is a neccessary condition. If there is no declared war this legislation could not be activated.

Please read the bill, it is short. I stand by my previous post.

[Trouble 45-70]

Sec. (102) a. Wonder if it would allow for the conscription (impressment?) of all the employees of a small business if the business owner supports an opposition candidate. Small business owners need to hedge their bets by employing a larger selection of old farts.

Just fighting fire with a little gasoline.

[belercous]

Its kinda hard to write the suppression of political opponents into law. Remember, this bill would apply to whatever political party is in power at the time. And, the bill has a slim chance to even make it out of committee, much less to pass the full House. Even less chance to pass the Senate. It is pure political posturing. These were the same (type, not specific) voices who decried the original draft. It ain't goin' nowhere.
Besides, have you ever known a bill that hasn't had exceptions & mark-ups before a floor vote? It ain't goin' nowhere. Rangle is only gonna use it for his constituents (how many co-sponsors does the bill have?), and fat lotta good that'll do after his ethics trial. He'd better settle (and I'd say he does, late/mid-August), because even if he gets re-elected, the House will refuse to seat him if he loses his trial come Sept.
This is a big to-do about nothing.

[jim brady]

Belercous - your's was an interesting post. I can start off by saying that you and I see things from a much different perspective. For one, I doubt if you will ever see the 'Draft' again. The Armed Services are seeming to obtain sufficient recruits to fill the ranks, and there seems to have been a surge of Patriotism after 9/11.

Secondly, the fact that the elected President is Democrat or Republican makes little difference as to if we are engaged in war or not. Four shining stars on that point are Lincoln (Republican), Roosevelt (Democrat), Kennedy (Democrat) and Bush (Republican).

You speak of "Hard Labor", and I assume that you imply that making little rocks out of big rocks in the old days before the reformation of the Penal System. Don't think anybody actually does that anymore. The prisons are now "Correctional Facilities" and not "Penal Institutions". Being incarcerated for violation of civilized norms is not "slavery". It is not involuntary servitude. It is civilized socieity's method of removing persons from the civil population as punishment and hopeful rehabiliation.

I am a little older than you are, but I did not wait to be drafted. I did serve with people who were drafted, and we all did our duty. I think that by the time you reached High School and maybe college that the teachers and professors of my day were gone and more liberal thinking persons took their place. I am certain that they portrayed America differently to you than the country that I was nurtured to love.

We are not perfect, but we ARE closer to perfection than any other nation in history has ever been able to achieve. In closing, you seem to have a distain for this Forum's readers. I don't think this is much of an 'echo chamber'. You and I certainly disagree on our view points. I accept your views as studied, but again we are not in total agreement.

[belercous]

Jim; No, I don't expect to see the draft again. This was political posturing on the part of the same people who opposed the draft in the `60's. Now, for some strange reason, they think that conscription will somehow avoid wars that are unneccessary. They don't seem to understand that the draft in the `60's somehow managed to avoid the upper-crust. It won't even make it out of committee.

Being incarcerated & put to work is most certainly "involuntary servitude." That is why the 13th Amen. specifically permits such. One would be a "slave" otherwise and have a cause for action otherwise. The Framers of the 13th A. knew what they were doing, that's why it is written as it is.

I would like to thank you for your voluntary service, truly.

We certainly are not perfect, but we (as a nation) are closer than others, our B.O.R. is a defining factor. This is about the best there is. We are in accord here. Other nations accord their citizens more freedoms, but our rights are enshrined in a constitution, not merely by law.

I show disdain for those who can only see one view & can only parrot what others have said. Those who only quote bumper-stickers and have no analytical thinking abilities get no quarter from me. If all one can do is reply with a pithy quote from some right wing talk-show host and not explain the factual/reasoned basis behind their statements, then they deserve to look the fool. But I don't call them a fool, that will be obvious to others who think for themselves.

I do see a lot of the right-wingers (that's no slander, I'm left-wing) here who offer nothing constructive/informative to the debate but their opinions. And we all got opinions. I just try to inject a little fact/other view to the discourse. Otherwise, it becomes an echo-chamber where some strange idea bounces back-and-forth until it somehow gets spit out as a truth. Witness the latest CNN poll where only 42% of Americans belive Obama was born an American. Just shows to go ya, that if you shout a lie loud enough, & long enough, people will accept it as true. People will believe the big lie over the small one, and it makes no difference if it's modern-day America or nazi-Germany. Loud, repeated, lies work.

And Jim; we don't have to agree, nor do I expect such. Reasonable people can come to different opinions on the same set of facts. Otherwise their wouldn't be court cases. I see your view, and I'm good wit that.

Too d@#%^d hot here to shoot so far this year. Rain or heat. And the heat is rude. Only got off about 350 rds. so far. Sux.

[topper]

Ya mean slavery is not here already? Just what do ya call working all yer life and barely scrapping by after paying enormous taxes after taxes and being unable to save even a paltry amount for retirement? Slavery was never abolished, it just changed it's ugly face to another form.

[jim brady]

This is one of the few times that anyone has been honest enough to say right out that they are "left wing". I honestly think of myself as "moderate' but I am certain that there are those who who say I am 'right wing'.

Belercous and I will likely never agree on this: Jail/Prison sentance as Slavery/Involuntary Servitude. I am cool with that.

I am extremely surprised that I find myself in agreement with a "Left Winger" in my core belief that the "upper crust" managed to avoid military service and the draft in the 60s, and are now the very same political and cultural leaders who are calling the shots (The Man). Those who protested the draft in the streets are now threatening to re-instate it.

We come ever-so-close to agreement as our Country being near to perfection. When you say "We are closer than others" I am led to believe that you see that there is or was another nation closer to reaching a state of perfection than has ours. I am curious what Nation that is or was?.

Then the reference to the Bill Of Rights being "about the best there is". I truly wish not to nit-pick, but is there another nation or civilization who has or had anything in a written decree of guaranteed rights of it's citizens even remotely similar or equal to ours? Or if we have "about the best", wich one is better than our's?

I do watch FOX News. I also watch Meet The Press and ABC and NBC News regularly for balance. I believe that if you view just one source for information that you will be ill-informed. I first saw Glen Beck after a Union Brother of mine ranted and raved about how much of a jerk Beck and Laura Ingram was. I had to see for myself, and found that I actually agree with Beck a majority of the time. I am a Democrat, and he certainly bashes us, but he also clobbers Republicans when they mess up. He does hate Unions, and I am a 30 year plus Union member who has walked a number of picket lines.

And Laura Ingram? I guess I'm just a sucker for intelligent/fiesty/attractive women. I find I agree with her, or at least recognize her honesty in approaching issues vs "reporters" such as Katie Curic or Dianne Sawyer. I figure when I see a "Kitty Up A Tree" story on ABC or NBC, I think maybe something important is going on that they don't wish to address, so I swich to FOX and hear about the ACORN scandal or the Federal law suit against Arizona.

[Marlin T]

I don't mean to break up the pace here, but I have to inject that this is just ANOTHER year that Charles Rangel has introduced this almost exact same bill.

Please feel to correct me if I am wrong.

[obxned]

Great idea. Let's start with congress - for two years they each do their jobs and don't get paid (actually, getting them to do their job of representing the people who elected them would be a miracle at any price). Then let the civil 'servants' work two years for free. Then if there is any great public works in need of free labor, let those living off the dole get up off their useless butts and pretend they are more than just a waste of good oxygen.

Let’s get real – any idea the Anointed One comes up with is solely for his self aggrandizement, increased control of us peons, and to destroy the fabric of our lives. If there were actual projects that need doing, the billions in ‘stimulus’ money surely covered that, and if those billions weren’t enough, hire the unemployed. After all, Bigmouth Joe admitted their jobs are never ever coming back.

[belercous]

Topper; you are correct, slavery has always been with us. Still is. {The south called northerners "wage slaves." I was refering to involuntary slavery.} The 13th Amen. specifically says "...except as punishment for a crime..." which is why convicts can be put to work and have no standing to sue. Slavery, in some instances, is still constitutional.

Jim; I'm sure ya don't get many liberals (libertarians excepted) here. I happen to support all of the Constitution, not just the parts I agree with.
I'd say the scandinavian countries (overall) give their citizens more personal liberties. I am a "civil" libertarian. Anything that others want to do that does not infringe upon the liberty of others is ok by me. Gay marriage? So what? Costs me nothing and I have no desire to tell others how to live. If someone breaks into my house to support a drug/gambling/whatever habit, that is a crime and ought to be punished. Same for neglecting one's kids. Or endangering others by driving an automobile, etc. See the Libertarian platform and their rationale for my views. I depart from the party on businesses. Businesses (not small enterprises, but corporations) are not people and ought not be treated as such.
And yes (as you have likely guessed), I am in favor of a social saftey net ala the European model. I think a country as great as ours ought not be like Bangalore, India (or insert 3rd world country of choice) with the destitute begging and picking corn out of cow sh1t to survive. Just my preference, derived from my travels. Others may see nothing wrong with this.
I'm not a student of world govs., but from what I understand, other nations do not have as liberal a constitution (overall) as we do. Our Bill of Rights is a bit extreme, and I'm good with that. And I know of no other country which allows their citizens C.C., which I'm good with also. (I am licensed to carry in 26 states, but not mine.) Perhaps we do have the best constitution, but I look to what we can do/be and tend to lose focus on what we actually do have at times. I'm not a single-issue voter, and cannot disagree with anyone saying our is the best nation going, but "best" is a subjective term. When I discuss our gov. with foriegners, I tend to be a bit defensive of the US.
I applaud you viewing a variety of sources, but remember, Berck, Ingrahm, et al, are not news, those are opinions. With "op-eds" you will get less than 1/2 the story, and what you do get will be slanted. When you hear the rest of the story you will see that things are not so black & white. If things were as truly as they say, it would be an open & shut case. They'd be right. Why do you think those arguments fail in Congress? Because the opposition has a different story and once all the facts come out, it's not so black & white afterall.
Glenn Beck really isn't too bright so you'd better double check his "facts" and reasoning. Ingrahm is a hate-filled person who only gives you partial facts. Hannity just flat-out lies. Limbaugh (likely the smartest of the lot), uses fallacious arguments & tricks of rhetoric, interspersed with discredited sources. Jay Sekulow (ACLJ) often misstates the Constitution. Sekulow & Ingrahm are the only ones who have graduate degrees. In today's world an under-grad degree is what a H.S. degree was in the `60's. And Beck, Hannity & Limbaugh don't even have that. Believe them at your own peril.
Meet The Press, ABC, NBC are good. I don't care about Paris Hilton. M. Jackson, or any of that other crap either. But that is what has happened to the state of news today. The news departments now must make money, it is no longer a public service, hence the crap. That's why I like the BBC and NPR. A variety of sources is one's best bet.

Marlin; No news here. Many members introduce bills which will go nowhere just to mollify their constituents. And Rangle is soon to be gone. While the GOP changed the rules to keep Tom Delay in his seat, the Dems have a sense of shame. Rangle already stepped down from his chair whereas Delay wouldn't even do that. Don't look for Rangle in the next Congress, they'll refuse to seat him unless he pleads. (Look for that in late August, if he's smart)

[jim brady]

Belercous - I can't speak much about the Scandinavian countries having more personal liberty than we have here. You may well be correct, but I can't imagine them having the freedoms to choose that we have here. This being a firearms forum, in that reguard alone I doubt if peoples from Scandinavian countries having the same level of firearms ownership and ability to self defence that we have.

As far as the European style social safety net, I understand that many of Euroupean countries are scaling back their socialized medical programs because they are not cost effective, nor do they provide a level of service that is available here. Again, I agree with you that medical care should be available to all - even those who cannot afford premium level care.

I don't agree with you on Beck. I believe him to be informed, although he is sometimes TOO passionate in his arguements. I have seen him criticize conservatives as well as liberals.

Limbaugh is an entertainer. He is obviously conservative in his radio persona. I don't think that he is to be taken as seriously as many do. He is certainly no 'leader' of any conservative movement.

SHUDDER!!!! We agree again. Corporate entities should never be treated as persons. Unfortunately, corporate entities contribute big bucks to both political organizations and have been rewarded over a hundred years with undue political might. If I were made "King For A Day" for America, that would be the first thing I would un-do.

The Bill Of Rights can never contain enough guarantees of liberty as far as I'm concerned. Can you imagine the state of our liberty had not those wise founding fathers enshrined essential liberty in that document?

Lastly, I really don't see Laura Ingram as a hateful spirit. She - like Beck - is very passionate in her views. If there were to be a true role model for the Women's Rights Movement, it would certainly have to be a person such as she. She is articulate, intelligent and out-spoken. I am a confirmed hetero-sexual (straight) male, and I am an ardent supporter of women's equal rights. As such, I am confounded by the liberal media - and scores of women within it - who viciously attack a person such as Sarah Palin merely because her political and social views are conservative. That diversity should be cherished.

[belercous]

Jim; No, we have the best protection of rights to own guns. I was just saying that they had more personal liberties. Less infliction of "morality" on others.
Better double-check Glenn Beck, he just not too bright. I heard him say that the Nazi's were liberal. And by his own admission, he is to the right of them, since he is not liberal. Wow. Takes a real rocket surgeon to believe that. Do you really think the Nazi's were liberal?
Glenn beck knows just enough to be dangerous, he is not well informed, otherwise he wouldn't say the weird things he does. You trust his judgement? Then buy gold now. He touts it, loud and often. Put your money where your mouth is. Buy gold and let's see what happens in 3 years.
Glenn Beck has what college degree? Oh, he's self-educated. Would you go to a doctor who is "self-educated?" Ever heard of "critical thinking?" Probably not, it's a 100 level class, and I can assure you that G. Beck has no Idea of what its about. Or, if he does, then he is using fallacious logic/rhetoric to sway people's opinion. I would be embarassed to have him (or Limbaugh, Hannity, et, al.,) speaking on behalf of the left. Same as I tell people that Michael Moore does the same tricks, not to be a trusted source. If you quote these people, be prepared to look the fool.
One thing I have learned thru (gasp) higher education, is that there are at least two sides to every story, often more. Beck, Hannity, et. al., only present one side of an issue. This is commonly refered to as propaganda. Propaganda often contains a kernel of truth, same as stereotypes. If I had 20 minutes of undisputed airtime, I could make child molesting (under our current laws) sound legitimate. These people (talk radio hosts) don't give airtime to opposing views, or when they do, they get someone who is not too bright, let them on for 20 seconds, and then tear their argument up with no chance for a rebuttal. (Hannity is an exception. No, he does not give rebuttal time, but I've heard people who are intelligent just chew his arguments up and make him look bad, but that is not the case in the majority of airtime)
Limbaugh at leat tells you up front that the callers are screened to make him look good. Put him in a real debate forum and he'd be ridiculed so fast it'd make his head spin. Which it probably does considering all the Oxy-contin (artifical heroin) he's done. And he'd put people in prison for smoking pot.
Yes, I do give Beck credit for criticizing both liberals and conservatives. Its just that he does not seem to have a very good grasp upon how gov. works, or our Constitution. Probably has something to do with him being "self-educated." But, hey, everyone's got an opinion. I just prefer to listen to those who have an informed opinion.
I'm glad to see that you don't fully subscribe to the conservative (and Libertarian) view in re; corporations. I hope you realize that every (serious) candidate for federal office has been vetted by big-biz Inc. Don't matter who you vote for, Big Biz, Inc., will win. Obama, G.W.B., Clinton, G.H.W.B., Reagan were all vetted. Sux. We have free-market politics, highest bidder wins. How else can it be explained why the party in power gets the most campaign "donations?" Who really thinks that if "X Corp." donates big bucks to a candidate that if that candidate wins, they won't be repaid?
And yes, SHUDDER, we agree on some things. Well, it sometimes works that way. We can agree or disagree, but I believe that we both have in mind America's best interest as our core belief. We may disagree as to the best way to achieve it, but please don't (and I'm not talking at you specifically, but rather some of your bretheren) try to paint me as unpatriotic, as I'm not.

I still disagree with you in re: L. Ingrahm, I see her as a hate-filled person that I would never let a child in my care be around. People attack Palin because she just really doesn't seem to informed, or bright. She can have her views all she wants, but just get some informed basis or facts to base them on. She's a vote-getter for the GOP base, but she can't attract the critical swing-voters. I really wish the GOP would run her for prez. in 2012, it'd be a landslide for the Dems.

[jim brady]

belercous - The times I heard Beck refer to Nazi's, he was usually bringing up the point of comparison of The German Nationalist/Socialist to the Communist/Socialist Movement. I don't know if Beck is crazy enough to link Liberalism to the German NAZI movement. Maybe he would?

I just felt the ground just shift under my feet. Could that mean you have swayed my opinion just a bit? Thanks for an interesting point of view. Hang in there and stick to your guns! (Laura Ingram is still a Doll!)

[whymememe]

Blackhack, I like the idea of getting rid of the civil service program. All services could be provided through contract services. Maybe we could get something done and save money in the budget too. There are two things in common with the civil servant and the minute man missle. They won't work and you can't fire them.

[whymememe]

I don't think history will repeat itself so soon. If it does we only have ourselves to blame. Been there done that.

[Zhurh]

Have ya all seen that movie about the South winning the Civil War? It actually was quite funny. Movie set all kinds of people off, ha ha. It was a series of interviews of Blacks & Whites about what life was like in the USA today. Slaves were happy, non slaves were happy, everybody happy ever after. One thing for sure, people weren't so politically correct or caught up into perceived racism in todays world. The movie wasn't well received by the powers that be I figure.

[whymememe]

There is already social unrest. It not a good time to try something like this. Will never happen.

[HunterAlpha1]

Have ya all seen that movie about the South winning the Civil War? It actually was quite funny. Movie set all kinds of people off, ha ha. It was a series of interviews of Blacks & Whites about what life was like in the USA today. Slaves were happy, non slaves were happy, everybody happy ever after. One thing for sure, people weren't so politically correct or caught up into perceived racism in todays world. The movie wasn't well received by the powers that be I figure.

what's the name of that movie? might be worth a watch.

[45Auto]

National Service is used in various countries. Most often tied to paying back the state for your education. If you graduate high school only you go in as an enlisted rank. If you graduate collage then you go into national service as a 2nd Lt. Some countries give you an option to pay money instead of national service.

[Zhurh]

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America (2004)

Movie was made in England as a documentary satire of how America ended up right up to today after the South won the civil war; stars & Bars over the White House and all. Of course it was a left wing British play on our troubles concerning racism. It was on dir tv last year, one of the minor movie channels that play controversial movies & artsy films. It would be good to have around, kick on when relatives or house full of friends are visiting. Everybody would be wondering about that movie? ha ha.

[HunterAlpha1]

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America (2004)

Movie was made in England as a documentary satire of how America ended up right up to today after the South won the civil war; stars & Bars over the White House and all. Of course it was a left wing British play on our troubles concerning racism. It was on dir tv last year, one of the minor movie channels that play controversial movies & artsy films. It would be good to have around, kick on when relatives or house full of friends are visiting. Everybody would be wondering about that movie? ha ha.

thanks, i will definitely check it out. lucky my favourite movie/TV site, http://www.1channel.ch/, has it :)

[dge479]

You work and they take your money and redistribute it to people that do not work. Sounds like slavery ,or is that welfare. get the 2 confused. I gues slavery has existed here for a while unchecked.
This bill though if true makes it even worse

[whymememe]

thanks, i will definitely check it out. lucky my favourite movie/TV site, http://www.1channel.ch/, has it :)

Some of the folks around here think the South might rise again. They say hell no we aint forgettin.

[raven818]

Middle class white folks are the slaves now.

Not just middle class white folks. It will also include folks like Herman. And, there's tons of them who are falling away from the " I'm a victim " BS.