Is The Draft Coming Back?

Frimost said:
LOL!!! :D

This is like arguing with someone that the sky is blue or water is wet. I don't need to argue with you because I know I am right!

Here you go, from the Navy's own website!

:D

edited because maybe LT and I were arguing over symantics. If however he disputed that the Marines are part of the Navy heirarchy then he is flat out wrong as shown above.
Dude, even a guy with military experience just said in this thread that you got your wording wrong.

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=22756692&postcount=259

And I never did dispute that the Marines were a part of the Navy hierarchy. So your if scenario is irrelevant.
 
LovingTongue said:
From who, the likes of you? Inconsistency and avoidance of solid facts would be redeeming traits compared to the level of intellectual and moral dishonesty that you bow down to on a daily basis.
Exactly: from me.

You would benefit from reading and understanding the likes of me.

I have been consistent in my assertions ever.

And I am as opposed to the draft as you are, ever.

I just don't threaten people or fly across the country to confront people about it.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution clearly acknowledges that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that the reason for that is so that the people can, at any time, form a militia sufficient to repel any foreign invasion. Furthermore, that being the case, the United States of America has no need of a standing army, and no right to one, beyond what it can procure from financial inticements, nor to any "draft" that it might presume to be able to enforce, being, as it is, completely beyond any construction of the powers given it according to the Constitution.

And that is my opinion.
 
Byron In Exile said:
Exactly: from me.

You would benefit from reading and understanding the likes of me.

I have been consistent in my assertions ever.

And I am as opposed to the draft as you are, ever.

I just don't threaten people or fly across the country to confront people about it.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution clearly acknowledges that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that the reason for that is so that the people can, at any time, form a militia sufficient to repel any foreign invasion. Furthermore, that being the case, the United States of America has no need of a standing army, and no right to one, beyond what it can procure from financial inticements, nor to any "draft" that it might presume to be able to enforce, being, as it is, completely beyond any construction of the powers given it according to the Constitution.

And that is my opinion.
That stands in direct contradiction to the fact that YOU demanded my name and address and explicitly stated that if you got it, you'd come and shoot me on sight. The admins deleted that thread, but you know you wrote it.

The first THREATS did not come from me. The first RACIAL INSULTS did not come from me. They came from WARMACHINE. Absolutely no one had a damned thing to say about that until I responded. This thread is itself a documentation of all of that.
 
LovingTongue said:
That stands in direct contradiction to the fact that YOU demanded my name and address and explicitly stated that if you got it, you'd come and shoot me on sight. The admins deleted that thread, but you know you wrote it.
How can it be that I would shoot you "on sight" when I have no idea what you look like and you claim to be black which I don't even believe?

So would I hunt you by feel? lol

The first THREATS did not come from me. The first RACIAL INSULTS did not come from me. They came from WARMACHINE. Absolutely no one had a damned thing to say about that until I responded. This thread is itself a documentation of all of that.
And so it is. And so it shall remain.
 
Byron In Exile said:
How can it be that I would shoot you "on sight" when I have no idea what you look like and you claim to be black which I don't even believe?

So would I hunt you by feel? lol
Because you asked for my home address, dumbass. And if WARMACHINE and Daedalus77 had shown up at the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu dojo, you would know for sure that I'm black, and you wouldn't be bullshitting yourself about it.

And so it is. And so it shall remain.
So much for your integrity. It's not about what is done but who does it, eh?
 
LovingTongue said:
Because you asked for my home address, dumbass. And if WARMACHINE and Daedalus77 had shown up at the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu dojo, you would know for sure that I'm black, and you wouldn't be bullshitting yourself about it.


So much for your integrity. It's not about what is done but who does it, eh?
If you really are black, you're an excellent representation of why one shouldn't judge a race by an individual.
 
Byron In Exile said:
If you really are black, you're an excellent representation of why one shouldn't judge a race by an individual.
If you're a human being, you're a rock solid living argument for abortion.
 
Byron In Exile said:
That's just silly.
See? You're dumb as a fucking box of rocks. I mean, really, how low on one's belly does someone have to crawl not to go right over your head?
 
LovingTongue said:
See? You're dumb as a fucking box of rocks. I mean, really, how low on one's belly does someone have to crawl not to go right over your head?
So, since I agree with you on the draft issue, your position is stupid?
 
Byron In Exile said:
So, since I agree with you on the draft issue -
You keep saying that, but your actions don't agree with your words. You've been defending a dude who, in this exact thread, had a superkook meltdown over my opposition to the draft. And THAT is yet another point you plan on avoiding. :)
 
LovingTongue said:
You keep saying that, but your actions don't agree with your words. You've been defending a dude who, in this exact thread, had a superkook meltdown over my opposition to the draft. And THAT is yet another point you plan on avoiding. :)
Clearly, I haven't defended anyone about anything.

Your simplistic characterizations are abysmally stupid, as usual.

No country with a Second Amendment, as the United States has, has any basis upon which to require its citizens to enroll in what can only be described as involuntary servitude for the ostensible purpose of defending that country, whether or not that country itself has been attacked by any other country.

I disagree with Warmachine & MWG on this issue.

Also, you are an idiot.
 
Byron In Exile said:
Clearly, I haven't defended anyone about anything.

Your simplistic characterizations are abysmally stupid, as usual.

No country with a Second Amendment, as the United States has, has any basis upon which to require its citizens to enroll in what can only be described as involuntary servitude for the ostensible purpose of defending that country, whether or not that country itself has been attacked by any other country.

I disagree with Warmachine & MWG on this issue.

Also, you are an idiot.
CLEARLY?!!! You've given that dude hardly ANY criticism for the meltdowns he's had. You didn't have SHIT to say about this except when I retaliated. You're such a lying sack of shit, now THAT is clear.

Either that or you're too much of a mental feeb to remember what you did.
 
5 Branches of the Military Armed Forces.

United States Army
United States Navy
United States Airforce
United States Marine Corps
United States Coast Guard

all 5 fall under the Department of Defence Budget and are considered Military forces which can be used on agressive measures against a forigen enemy.


the Marines are a subgroup of the Navy, as is the Coast Guard. however both the Coast Guard and Marines do not Answer to the Navy, nor are they under direct control Of the Navy. which is why they form their own group in the DoD.
 
no there wont be a draft, the income quotas for all armed services are effectively on an all time hi.

why it is being considered is because Washington is giving the military Insane scedules to keep and they say either 'Give us more people' or 'Change our strategy'

because as it stands now, signing up for 4 years in any of the armed forces you are assured over Half of your time in that branch will be spent over in Iraq. and the military wants and needs people to fill other positions in other parts of the world, but can't do that to well if they are forced to have manditory 18 month rotations of units in Iraq.
 
LovingTongue said:
CLEARLY?!!! You've given that dude hardly ANY criticism for the meltdowns he's had. You didn't have SHIT to say about this except when I retaliated. You're such a lying sack of shit, now THAT is clear.

Either that or you're too much of a mental feeb to remember what you did.
I agree with your point, and you call me a "lying sack of shit."

And you wonder why most of the board has you on ignore?

lol
 
Byron In Exile said:
I agree with your point, and you call me a "lying sack of shit."

And you wonder why most of the board has you on ignore?

lol

Bingo!
 
Byron In Exile said:
I agree with your point, and you call me a "lying sack of shit."

And you wonder why most of the board has you on ignore?

lol
Wow, you're not good at reading, are you.

You said

"Clearly, I haven't defended anyone about anything."

THAT is a lie, and you know it.

And I don't care who you say has me on ignore - you're an idiot, and anyone who sides with you on this is, too.
 
Byron In Exile said:
Being a fool for a woman such as yourself is always the right thing to do.

If you had met me forty years ago, would I have been your Number One lady?

You know, instead of that skanky bitch, bg23?
 
NonSexWithHer said:
Ther are 140,000 active-duty, reserve and National Guard soldiers currently deployed in Iraq.

The total enlistment goal for active Army and Army reserves was 100,000. If half of the 140,000 troops currently in Iraq were to go home and stay, two-thirds of this year's recruits would be needed to replace them.

And that does not take into consideration military needs at home and around the globe.

Charles Rangel, a democrat, is the one advocating a draft the loudest. He thinks that if the draft is reinstituted, people will start protesting more and that would be good for him because he wants to relive the 60's.
 
Pookie said:
If you had met me forty years ago, would I have been your Number One lady?

You know, instead of that skanky bitch, bg23?
You should not call her that, because there was a time... well, she was my number one lady at one time.

But that was several years ago.

However, if I had met you when you defended Gore's "election" in 2000, I would have made you... my Number One lady.
 
Byron In Exile said:
You should not call her that, because there was a time... well, she was my number one lady at one time.

But that was several years ago.

However, if I had met you when you defended Gore's "election" in 2000, I would have made you... my number one lady.

Well, I'm flattered.

And as for bg23 ... well, lets just say we have some unfinished business. And not a goddamn fuckin' thing she's done in the subsequent years, including getting knocked up (I so enjoy starting rumours), is going to change that.
 
Pookie said:
Well, I'm flattered.

And as for bg23 ... well, lets just say we have some unfinished business. And not a goddamn fuckin' thing she's done in the subsequent years, including getting knocked up (I so enjoy starting rumours), is going to change that.
Well, I have to say that bg23 was honarable in all she did. She even dug a tunnel. Nobody I knew ever dug a tunnel towards me. So there's that.

Elsewise, she was sweet and cute. So there's that, too.

Also, in spite of throwing pans and pots at me, she was generally livable.

But, secretly, I had nobody to spar with.

That sucked.

And then she ran off with Kyle, which also sucked, but that was my fault, really.
 
Back
Top