What is it really going to take?

The first compromise to the limitations of the Feds I remember (well not personally like I was there) sadly goes all the way back to the 1790s and the Whiskey Rebellions and our President Washington sending troops to western PA to enforce the collection of whiskey taxes. I'm not sure there was that much difference between whiskey and tea. The Repubicans repealed the tax a dozen or so years later but the federal thirst for dollars was already growing.

Another pivotal point that accelerated the intrusion and power grab of the federal government was the wrong Supreme Court decision in the 1940s over Roscoe Filburn growing wheat for his own consumption and the Feds felt compelled to control that because his not buying wheat would affect interstate commerce. UnF'ing believable!


Of course we can't overlook FDR threatening to appoint 5 more justices to the SC if they didn't rule his way for a bunch of the social programs he was pursuing. The robed whimps caved.

AT

 

Too bad it would never work, even if it was law of the land. Any, and every law can be revoked with the proper ratio of votes. Even the Constitution itself.

 

I could bite off on that, but then you WILL have other groups (LEO/FIRE,ect) saying that they are just as worthy because they too are "heros"..

 

And the rest would claim unfair business practice, and sue for equal compensation, which would of course defeat the purpose.

 

True, but I was talking about those groups overall.

 

It's the line in the sand problem. Where do you draw it and who holds the stick

 

Because today everybody is a hero...

 

Everyone has the ability to be a hero. But very few are heroes everyday. How often would you have to be a hero to qualify?
I'm not military, but when I was young and stupid, I went into a burning building, while everyone else was running out. (Like I said, stupid) but I did some good, and got a couple of kids out. So would that qualify for your hero standard, or do I have to be very stupid everyday?

 

"do I have to be very stupid everyday?"


I'll behave, and not reply with the first thought that entered my mind..
I think you got my point. Nowadays everybody is a hero. I disagree. Just because you choose to put on a uniform of any sort, doesn't make you a hero. Is my son a hero because he's a cop? NO. Is my brother a hero because he was shot in the line of duty? NO. Is the fireman/EMT a hero because they answer the fire bell? NO. Are the soldiers,airmen,sailors,marines and coast guard hero's because they enlisted? NO. They all chose to take on those jobs. Doesn't make them automatic heros IMO.Don't get me wrong, I am thankful for and respect those that make those choices, and some do rise to the occasion and become heros. Most of those that truly do, don't consider themselves as such-interesting isn't it? My wife's uncle is a CMH winner for actions in the pacific. Had a ship named after him-that's a hero IMHO. The word has lost its meaning in today's world. JMT's

 

I have no problem with a mandatory two years of service in exchange for public schooling. I also think military service should be a requirement for a "commander in chief".

 

No, the draft is a lottery. What is being discussed here is mandatory, compulsory, required service by everyone. Regardless of religious or political view and served rather than simply being "eligible" to be called up if the need arises.

 

There is a little old man near me, that if you didn't know his history, you would have no idea the salad he is entitled to wear. He has a few that are not handed out easily. Yet, he runs a trailer lot for repair and storage of trailers, lives quietly, bothers no one.
You would never Even know he had served.

 

Not everyone is a hero. Everybody is not a winner. Nobody deserves a trophy just for showing up. That is one of the problems we face, the feeling or desire to make it okay for everyone. No, life doesn't work that way, even in a fully communist utopia. Everyone is just not equal. The argument can be made for equal access to the tools to succeed but neither success nor failure is guaranteed, even with an excess of effort and talent.

Political Correctness is as much a political viewpoint as it is the supposed desire to keep from hurting someone's feelings. The base problem there is that nobody can hurt your feelings, you can simply choose to have your feelings hurt. People say and do stupid, mean, demeaning, angering, ugly things all the time but those things, in almost every single situation are acceptable to both the individual and at least one other person.

It's more a political ideology though, right in line with mainline socialism and ultimately communism, where everyone is equal. Everyone is a winner because everyone ultimately loses because it's a race to the bottom where we all stand in the bread line together. Yes, there will also always be those who are more equal than the rest.

Going back to the point at hand, I think the majority of us would agree that those in the service are of a (at least) slightly different breed than the rest, but that doesn't make them all good people nor does it make them heroes. The point originally posted (not my OP but later on about servicemen/women and vets) was that they should be treated better/differently and/or receive something that the rest of us wouldn't. Not saying that's good or bad, just bringing the tangent back in line with the original thought (which did not derail the thread, the rest of this did).

Should your service qualify you for a perk? What if you serve for 4 years during peacetime and are never deployed and never see combat or are in harms way (with an enemy)? What if you are given the opportunity to get out just as hostilities are flaring up and choose to take it without ever having seen combat? We've already talked about an honorable discharge but what if you get drummed out in bootcamp due to physical inability? Nobody would blame you, you tried, but do you deserve the same spiff that others in the service qualify for?

Again, as @DarkLight mentioned, it's a line in the sand and it has to be both drawn and maintained and sometimes defended. Who gets to make that decision and who gets to determine if the criteria is fair or correct? You will piss some people off, no matter what you do.

Again, however, not everyone is a winner, a hero, a master of the things they try to do. People succeed and people fail, and that's life and that is fair in the long run although not in every single distinct case. Over the long haul, unless the game is rigged, it works out. There will always be a bell curve with winners at one end and losers at the other and a middle ground that just plugs along. That's the truth, that's being honest both about the situation and with yourself.

 

You assume that they would even bother to revoke or amend it rather than just ignore it, sort of like the Constitution itself.

 

Along the lines of compulsory service, what are your feelings on Compulsory Voting? Australia does it ($20 fine if you don't vote and don't have a good reason/$170+ if you refuse to pay the fine and it goes to court and you lose plus a criminal conviction).

Trying to decide if its too draconian, what the overall result would be and if it would tip the scales one way or the other.