Conscription: Liberal-Style

[JakeStarkey]

America has no lost sovereignty, friend, as a member of the UN.

False concept.

 

[Flanders]

America has no lost sovereignty, friend, as a member of the UN.

False concept.

To JakeStarkey: Once again you demonstrate your stupidity.

I doubt if you read enough of this thread to follow the discussion, but I’ll assume you played the videos in #10 permalink. They should have given you some clue as to where the New World Order sneaks are trying to take the country. There would be nothing to discuss if they were there. I’ll make it easy for you. Once Americans lose their independence it will be lost forever. My messages are about stopping them.

Here’s something that might penetrate your thick skull if you take the time to read it:

H.R.1146 -- American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1146/text​

A bit of advice. In the future remain silent if you cannot understand what the adults are talking about.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, this whole thread is about the musings of one Dana Milbank, and I am supposed to take that seriously?

Does Dana Milbank push legislation through Congress?

NO.

Is there a bill in Congress to reinstate the draft?

NO.

Would the President sign such a bill into law?

NO.

Case closed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

America has no lost sovereignty, friend, as a member of the UN.

False concept.

To JakeStarkey: Once again you demonstrate your stupidity.

American troops fought under French and British commands in WWI, under British commands in WWII, under the UN command in Korea and a dozen other scenarios, including Bosnia.

We suffered no loss of sovereignty.

One is entitled to an opinion but not one's own facts.

The OP is clearly fail. Time to move on.

 

[Statistikhengst]

America has no lost sovereignty, friend, as a member of the UN.

False concept.

To JakeStarkey: Once again you demonstrate your stupidity.

American troops fought under French and British commands in WWI, under British commands in WWII, under the UN command in Korea and a dozen other scenarios, including Bosnia.

We suffered no loss of sovereignty.

One is entitled to an opinion but not one's own facts.

The OP is clearly fail. Time to move on.

In fact, one of the most famous american fighter squadrons who fought with the Brits BEFORE we entered WWII, called "The Eagle Squadron", took it's orders temporarily and willingly from the upper brass of the RAF. Those guys did a hell of a job and a march has even been written in their honor:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF2ccpkYJyA]British Marches - Eagle Squadron - YouTube[/ame]

If you listen carefully, you will hear snippets a musical theme that should cause Americans to get on their feet and put their hands on their hearts. And you will hear another theme that is obviously air-warfare (sorties).

You are right. We suffered no loss of sovereignty. But we gained even stronger friends.

 

[Flanders]

To Statistikhengst: Yet another character short on reading comprehension skills finds my threads.

So, this whole thread is about the musings of one Dana Milbank, and I am supposed to take that seriously?

To Statistikhengst: Read the first sentence in the OP over and over again until you get it, or ask your keeper to explain it to you.

Does Dana Milbank push legislation through Congress?

NO.

To Statistikhengst: Charlie Rangel does.

Is there a bill in Congress to reinstate the draft?

NO.

To Statistikhengst: Putting a bill there is the point of the trial balloon.

Would the President sign such a bill into law?

NO.

To Statistikhengst: You really need help. The WAPO would not be talking about conscription if there was the slightest possibility he would veto it. In addition to everything else liberals want a draft provides perfect cover for Barack Taqiyya’s armed security force:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UHmecy94z-M]Obama calls for civilian paramilitary force - YouTube[/ame]​

Rangel hinted at using the draft to give Barack Taqiyya his personal paramilitary goon squad.

. . . U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., introduced the Universal National Service Act that would require “all persons” from ages 18 to 42 “to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security.”

His idea was to authorize “the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.”

Rangel’s plan specified that “national service” means “military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the president, promotes national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.”

Case closed.

To Statistikhengst: Your brain is the only thing that is closed.

American troops fought under French and British commands in WWI, under British commands in WWII, under the UN command in Korea and a dozen other scenarios, including Bosnia.

To JakeStarkey: You failed to mention Somalia (Blackhawk Down), or UN veto authority in Desert Storm that made the Iraq War inevitable. Naturally, you did not mention that the UN did not sanction a “Police Action” in Vietnam. Truman burned them in Korea and they were not about to fight Communism again.

Incidentally, America came to Great Britain’s rescue in both World Wars. The Brits refused to reciprocate by fighting with us in Vietnam. There were domestic reasons in the UK for the refusal, but not going against the United Nations was the primary International reason.

I’ll give you a pass on the stuff in the first two paragraphs because you’re not the brightest guy in the room, but you have to stand up for the rest of your ignorance.

Allies assigning military personnel to one another in war and peace is not the issue. Such exchanges are between SOVEREIGN NATIONS, and they are for a limited time. The issue is giving the United Nations —— an ORGANIZATION controlled in large part by America’s enemies —— permanent control of the US military. That has always been the objective of the New World Order crowd.

I can find a thousand quotes said by UN-loving traitors in high places, but Al Gore’s is the most ludicrous. My emphasis in the following:

Our UN responsibility is not well recognized by the electorate but is certainly a fact: Vice President Al Gore traveled to Marrakech, Morocco, in April 1994 for the signing of the new world trade agreement. (It is another U.S. destabilization apparatus.) Gore appeared hours after U.S. planes, enforcing an allied 'no fly' zone over northern Iraq, accidentally shot down two U.S. helicopters, killing 15 Americans and 11 foreign officials. He said: “I want to extend condolences to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations.” (Los Angeles Times, 6/12/94)

Warfare, the Road to Globalization
Part 2
By Deanna Spingola

Warfare, the Road to Globalization, Part 2​

Without any proof to support his claim Al Gore said Americans died for the United Nations. My guess is they believed they were serving their country. Put it another way. Ask everybody in the US military if they are willing to die serving the United Nations?

As to facts: Clinton’s Balkan Adventures —— bombing Christians to help Muslims —— was a NATO operation. I wish it had been a UN action because it was nothing to be proud of.

In fact, one of the most famous american fighter squadrons who fought with the Brits BEFORE we entered WWII, called "The Eagle Squadron", took it's orders temporarily and willingly from the upper brass of the RAF. Those guys did a hell of a job and a march has even been written in their honor:

British Marches - Eagle Squadron - YouTube

If you listen carefully, you will hear snippets a musical theme that should cause Americans to get on their feet and put their hands on their hearts. And you will hear another theme that is obviously air-warfare (sorties).

You are right. We suffered no loss of sovereignty. But we gained even stronger friends.

To Statistikhengst: A half-wit like JakeStarkey responds with indefensible positions and a fool like you jumps right in with more of the same misdirection.

 

[Statistikhengst]

To Statistikhengst: Yet another character short on reading comprehension skills finds my threads.

So, this whole thread is about the musings of one Dana Milbank, and I am supposed to take that seriously?

To Statistikhengst: Read the first sentence in the OP over and over again until you get it, or ask your keeper to explain it to you.

Does Dana Milbank push legislation through Congress?

NO.

To Statistikhengst: Charlie Rangel does.



To Statistikhengst: Putting a bill there is the point of the trial balloon.



To Statistikhengst: You really need help. The WAPO would not be talking about conscription if there was the slightest possibility he would veto it. In addition to everything else liberals want a draft provides perfect cover for Barack Taqiyya’s armed security force:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UHmecy94z-M]Obama calls for civilian paramilitary force - YouTube[/ame]​

Rangel hinted at using the draft to give Barack Taqiyya his personal paramilitary goon squad.





To Statistikhengst: Your brain is the only thing that is closed.



To JakeStarkey: You failed to mention Somalia (Blackhawk Down), or UN veto authority in Desert Storm that made the Iraq War inevitable. Naturally, you did not mention that the UN did not sanction a “Police Action” in Vietnam. Truman burned them in Korea and they were not about to fight Communism again.

Incidentally, America came to Great Britain’s rescue in both World Wars. The Brits refused to reciprocate by fighting with us in Vietnam. There were domestic reasons in the UK for the refusal, but not going against the United Nations was the primary International reason.

I’ll give you a pass on the stuff in the first two paragraphs because you’re not the brightest guy in the room, but you have to stand up for the rest of your ignorance.

Allies assigning military personnel to one another in war and peace is not the issue. Such exchanges are between SOVEREIGN NATIONS, and they are for a limited time. The issue is giving the United Nations —— an ORGANIZATION controlled in large part by America’s enemies —— permanent control of the US military. That has always been the objective of the New World Order crowd.

I can find a thousand quotes said by UN-loving traitors in high places, but Al Gore’s is the most ludicrous. My emphasis in the following:

Our UN responsibility is not well recognized by the electorate but is certainly a fact: Vice President Al Gore traveled to Marrakech, Morocco, in April 1994 for the signing of the new world trade agreement. (It is another U.S. destabilization apparatus.) Gore appeared hours after U.S. planes, enforcing an allied 'no fly' zone over northern Iraq, accidentally shot down two U.S. helicopters, killing 15 Americans and 11 foreign officials. He said: “I want to extend condolences to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations.” (Los Angeles Times, 6/12/94)

Warfare, the Road to Globalization
Part 2
By Deanna Spingola

Warfare, the Road to Globalization, Part 2​

Without any proof to support his claim Al Gore said Americans died for the United Nations. My guess is they believed they were serving their country. Put it another way. Ask everybody in the US military if they are willing to die serving the United Nations?

As to facts: Clinton’s Balkan Adventures —— bombing Christians to help Muslims —— was a NATO operation. I wish it had been a UN action because it was nothing to be proud of.

In fact, one of the most famous american fighter squadrons who fought with the Brits BEFORE we entered WWII, called "The Eagle Squadron", took it's orders temporarily and willingly from the upper brass of the RAF. Those guys did a hell of a job and a march has even been written in their honor:

British Marches - Eagle Squadron - YouTube

If you listen carefully, you will hear snippets a musical theme that should cause Americans to get on their feet and put their hands on their hearts. And you will hear another theme that is obviously air-warfare (sorties).

You are right. We suffered no loss of sovereignty. But we gained even stronger friends.

To Statistikhengst: A half-wit like JakeStarkey responds with indefensible positions and a fool like you jumps right in with more of the same misdirection.

Oh, you poor thing, you.

I almost feel sorry for you.

But look at it this way: it gives you one more thing to hate Obama for, even if it's not true at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flanders is floundering.

 

[Flopper]

America has no lost sovereignty, friend, as a member of the UN.

False concept.

To JakeStarkey: Once again you demonstrate your stupidity.

I doubt if you read enough of this thread to follow the discussion, but I’ll assume you played the videos in #10 permalink. They should have given you some clue as to where the New World Order sneaks are trying to take the country. There would be nothing to discuss if they were there. I’ll make it easy for you. Once Americans lose their independence it will be lost forever. My messages are about stopping them.

Here’s something that might penetrate your thick skull if you take the time to read it:

H.R.1146 -- American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1146/text​

A bit of advice. In the future remain silent if you cannot understand what the adults are talking about.

H.R.1146 -- American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009 It was introduced in 2011 and died in committee which is where rubbish such as this belongs.

 

[Flanders]

Oh, you poor thing, you.

I almost feel sorry for you.

But look at it this way: it gives you one more thing to hate Obama for, even if it's not true at all.

Flanders is floundering.

H.R.1146 -- American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009 It was introduced in 2011 and died in committee which is where rubbish such as this belongs.

Help! I’m being attacked by retards armed with snappy retorts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, you poor thing, you.

I almost feel sorry for you.

But look at it this way: it gives you one more thing to hate Obama for, even if it's not true at all.

Flanders is floundering.

H.R.1146 -- American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009 It was introduced in 2011 and died in committee which is where rubbish such as this belongs.

Help! I’m being attacked by retards armed with snappy retorts.

Such a tardo comment. You have gotten whipped in this thread, son.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Oh, you poor thing, you.

I almost feel sorry for you.

But look at it this way: it gives you one more thing to hate Obama for, even if it's not true at all.

H.R.1146 -- American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009 It was introduced in 2011 and died in committee which is where rubbish such as this belongs.

Help! I’m being attacked by retards armed with snappy retorts.

Such a tardo comment. You have gotten whipped in this thread, son.

....like fish in a barrel....

 

[Flanders]

You have gotten whipped in this thread, son.

....like fish in a barrel....

To JakeStarkey & Statistikhengst: Pigeons claiming victory does not make them chess masters.

"Pigeon chess" is defined at Urban Dictionary as "having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory." The term is generally used in conjunction with an explanation that it derives from the image of a pigeon engaging in a chess match by "knocking the pieces over, crapping on the board, and flying off to announce that it has won":

Pigeon chess

Urban Dictionary: pigeon chess​

 

[JakeStarkey]

Admitting fail is what you are doing, Flanders, is what you are doing with the ad homs.

 

[Flanders]

Admitting fail is what you are doing, Flanders, is what you are doing with the ad homs.

To JakeStarkey: I did pigeons a disservice when I implied you’re a birdbrain. A pigeon would know better than to say Pigeon Chess questioned your motives.

ad hominem adjective

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

I’ll make it simple for you. Pigeon Chess defines your debating technique. You’re utterly ignorant of the subject matter, and you cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic. That is fact not motive.

The reason you responded goes to motive which I did not address.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Wonderful fail thread..... Flanders really should run for President as GOP candidate.