Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: exdaytrader76 who wrote (585494)	6/25/2004 9:33:43 PM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Yes, indeed, and we are relying too heavily on reserves and National Guard. Not that they are poorly trained or unwilling, mind you, but that they have other lives and other jobs that languish while they are serving in country. A volunteer force should be professional and act accordingly. If I'm not mistaken, all officers must swear to defend the constitution, NOT the administration or the government. Do enlisted personnel have to take a similar oath?

To: exdaytrader76 who wrote (585494)	6/25/2004 9:35:36 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Frankly, I think there should be a universal service requirement. I think it would make policy making a more complicated issue. Everyone should share the burden.

To: exdaytrader76 who wrote (585494)	6/26/2004 12:24:41 AM
From: Mana	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

The draft bill is HR 163; it's lurking in committee right now. congress.gov Why does it not surprise me that all the sponsors of the bill are socialists. ******************************************************** H.R.163 Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, 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. Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors (13) Related Bills: S.89 Latest Major Action: 2/3/2003 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Executive Comment Requested from DOD. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COSPONSORS(13), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date) Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 1/7/2003 Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 1/28/2003 Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] - 5/19/2004 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 1/28/2003 Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 1/7/2003 Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 1/28/2003 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 1/28/2003 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 1/28/2003 Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 1/7/2003 Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 1/7/2003 Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 1/28/2003 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 1/7/2003 Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/28/2003 Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC] - 1/28/2003(withdrawn - 6/21/2004)

To: exdaytrader76 who wrote (585494)	6/26/2004 1:34:27 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

This minute, we don't exactly have a 100% volunteer Army because many soldiers coming off contract have been forced to remain in service against their will. This does not sound correct to me. I admittedly do not know the law, but I am fairly sure there must be some contractual provision allowing for an extension of the service period. If the provision exists, then the additional service requirement is definitely NOT against the will of the servicemen, since they entered into the contract willingly. If the provision does not exist, then there is very likely an opportunity to make quite a nice chunk of change here.