Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

bishop · Sep 26, 2004, 04:47 pm

like i said before, i also agree that community service shouldn't be mandatory.

of course, he's saying that high school students should have to perform community service in order to graduate. which, i hope you'd agree, it a lot different than requiring grown adults to perform mandatory community service. it seems that you're taking his statement way beyond its actual context.

community service is good for communities.. you look at inner cities and the places kids can go to escape the streets are community services like the ymca, etc..

where is the crime in saying that high school kids should have to perform some community service as a graduation requirement?

i remember having to do this as a requirement for my confirmation (i'm catholic).. as a whiny kid, i definitely bitched and moaned at first, but afterwards i was glad that i had to do it - because i did do something good for my community. funny thing is that community service makes you feel more of a part of your community, which produces better communities. maybe, for example, if rich kids had to help out in less affluent neighborhoods, they wouldn't grow up viewing poorer people as subhumans - as many adults presently do.

Compugasm · Sep 26, 2004, 05:06 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bishop,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bishop,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>which, i hope you'd agree, it a lot different than requiring grown adults to perform mandatory community service.[/b]

Yep, sure is. Kids don't vote.

Quote:

Originally posted by bishop,@
where is the crime in saying that high school kids should have to perform some community service as a graduation requirement?

You forgot the govt mandated part. Anyway, they aren't required to do anything to take drivers ed. Like they must not skip more than 3 days of school a semester, otherwise they can't attend the class. Must they perform cafeteria duty 10hrs a month to eat a free lunch? Maybe not bad ideas, but I'm not trying to determine that right now. I'm trying to draw a line between mandated, and voluntary.

<!--QuoteBegin-bishop,
as a requirement for my confirmation (i'm catholic)..[/quote]
Ah, not government.

Compugasm · Sep 26, 2004, 05:11 pm

I think we'll just have to wait and see, what service meets govt approval. Because I also belive, you should do something. However, I wouldn't want to end up stamping license plates for a diploma. But, I'd be willing to work 10-20hrs for free lunch.

bishop · Sep 26, 2004, 05:38 pm

Quote:

I'm trying to draw a line between mandated, and voluntary.

i didn't overlook that point. i simply termed it as a "graduation requirement", which is exactly what it is. maybe i'll improve it and say "government mandated graduation requirement".

interesting study here.. seems that while everyone thinks that service is a good idea, nobody wants to be the person doing the work.

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheet...c_Education.pdf

maryland has such a requirement.. i think each student is required to complete 60 hours of community service. if it's anything like what i had to do for confirmation, you do the service and someone signs a piece of paper claiming that you did some work for them. like shovelling snow and raking leaves... from what i see from maryland, they occassionally have school functions where the kids can work on bigger projects.

heh, and inmates have monopolized the license plate industry.

bugsbunny04 · Sep 26, 2004, 05:42 pm

WAIT JUST A GOD DAMN MINUTE!

Okay, whats this crap in that "right track-wrong track" ad about how Bush has no plan to get out of Iraq and how Kerry is going to do such and such...Bush has had ALL those things in effect for months before this ad came out! I dont even like Bush! But the Kerry campaign just told a deliberate lie by saying they are going to do such and such because Bush has not even thought about it when in fact he has been doing it for over half a year! so we are a few months behind, big deal, the initial time estimates were optimistic and underestimated the hinderance that the insurgency would be.

So Bush is a bumbling, misguided idiot. Yeah, but Kerry is a god damn liar and I would call him that to his face.

Compugasm · Sep 26, 2004, 05:45 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bishop,
seems that while everyone thinks that service is a good idea, nobody wants to be the person doing the work.

Which is why parents won't oppose it, cause it "builds character" and Politicians don't even need to vote on it cause kids can't vote. It's a done deal.

RickSp · Sep 26, 2004, 05:46 pm

My sons are active in community service, as are my wife and I. We volunteer in a our local schools, work with local community associations and so forth. We are part of our community and we support it. No big deal really.

I can tell you what mandatory community service would mean in my neighborhood. It would be just another tool of patronage and probably graft. The local unions would arrange with the local political power brokers that their jobs were safe, so the army of "community servants" would become part of the local fiefdom of local ward leaders.

Conscription for what ever purpose is but another form of serfdom.

bishop · Sep 26, 2004, 05:48 pm

the only thing as far as bush goes, is that he's lost credibility. sure, he can say he'll go get international support, but how does the rhetoric compare to his track record?

big deal that bush has been saying these things for months. actions speak louder than words.

unless you're a psychic, nobody knows exactly how kerry would be, even though his track record is one of a multilateralist - which stands in stark contrast to bush's record.

RickSp · Sep 26, 2004, 05:55 pm

No, no no. Words speak louder than actions!

If you haven't seen this already, it is worth a look.

George W. Bush: Words Speak Louder Than Actions

bugsbunny04 · Sep 26, 2004, 05:57 pm

Actions...

several other countries, like 17, according to a Brit foreign secretary, are on the ground, and something like 30 have already pledged troops.

We have mercenaries and Special Forces on the ground training Iraqi troops and police.

In the latest engagements I hear about on the news, the Iraqi troops out number the Marines that go with them on the missions.

Are Fox and CNN haveing delusions?

Compugasm · Sep 26, 2004, 06:04 pm

I think your all watching a TV series called "CSI:Fallujah" or "Real World:Tikrit" filmed in Arizona.

bishop · Sep 26, 2004, 06:20 pm

how many MAJOR countries are helping us? the british contingent is fewer than 1,000 if i'm not mistaken. same with the aussies... whatever remains amounts to a whole lot of - not much. and, how much help are they helping towards the financial costs of reconstruction? also, pledges are meaningless until they actually happen. case in point: everyone pledged money for afghanistan, nobody delivered. you know much about the kickbacks we've given to the tiny countries that have helped us?

fyi, the iraqi troops are helping the insurgents. latest story was that our handpicked general for the sunni section was arrested on suspicion that he was helping them. they're always talking about training troops, but that never actually happens. and, these people they're training are completely incompetent when push comes to shove, meaning that our guys have to do all the heavy lifting.

RickSp · Sep 26, 2004, 06:22 pm

Quote:

several other countries, like 17, according to a Brit foreign secretary, are on the ground, and something like 30 have already pledged troops.

Senator Patrick Leahy pointed out that there are more troops from his small state of Vermont than all of the other "coalition partners" combined. The coalition is a joke.

bugsbunny04 · Sep 26, 2004, 07:20 pm

So what, you are saying they would help Kerry more? Kerry's f***ing point was that Bush was acting completely alone, which, regardless of the degree to which other countries are helping him, is a blatant lie. The point Im making is that contrary to Kerry's claims, they have been asked to help, and they have given only token participation. Kerry claim they HAVE NOT been asked and WOULD become EQUAL PARTNERS if given the opportunity. Bush is already giving it to them and they are blowing him on.

Again, Bush=moron, Kerry=liar

And remember, Kerry voted for the war, and then recanted, and then un recanted. Inconsistency is a mark of people who are dishonest and up to something bad.

Ill take an idiot with good intentions over someone who wants to f*** us over on purpose any day of the week and twice on the f***ing weekend.

bishop · Sep 26, 2004, 08:28 pm

he voted for the war on the assumption that we were under the threat of imminent attack. if we, in fact, were under the threat of imminent attack, then his vote was the right thing to do.

despite all the spin, that does not mean that kerry authorized the decision to invade iraq.

bush was the liar who pushed the case for pre-emptive war on the grounds that iraq was an imminent threat.

bugsbunny04 · Sep 27, 2004, 02:30 am

Bishop: Do you really beleive that line of bull shit? I hope not. Kerry knew the score. Bush didnt. Bush is a moron. Dick, Condi and Rummy say "hey, lets do this" and he's like "sounds good to me, but hold on, Im not done reading Beetle Baily".

And when somebody sais "wait just a god damn minute!" Cheney sais "go fuck yourself".

bishop · Sep 27, 2004, 09:07 am

at the end of the day, bush hit the red button, not kerry.

despite the administration's to satisfy congress's request for solid evidence of iraqi wmd's. inspectors were on the ground for a reason. we simply didn't know for sure whether/not there were wmd, and that's why the inspectors were there.

against that backdrop, it was logical to suspect that iraq still did have wmd's. and if that were the case, then the president must have the authority to take action if he were to know we were facing the threat of a truly imminent attack. do i think kerry would've launched some random war like bush did? not at all, he's much smarter than that.

Technosoul · Sep 27, 2004, 10:43 pm

The UN inspectors were basically just checking to see if Saddam secretly constructing or planning to construct a nuclear program, and if he had disposed of all the bio-chemicals that England had supplied them with many years ago before Desert Storm. The UN never thought or stated they thought he already had a nuclear program or WNDs set up or nearly ready to go. The main logic was to make sure Saddam was not massing close to Kuwait or any other neighboring country for another attempt to expand thier property line. It was evident that Saddam did not have missles powerful enough to reach Ameircan soil and it was only Rumsfield and the Vice President who attempted to scare people that a nuclear bomb could be tiny enough pack into a suitcase.

The fact is that Saddam had not violated any of the resolutions set forth by the UN nor did the inspectors find any pratical evidence to the contrary after wide spread investigation and years of monitoring them. Those facts were stated by the UN inspection team even before Bush gave his word to attack. So the UN was not inspecting Iraq because they thought they already had WMDs but so that Saddam would not attempt to get any or develope them. The Bush team attempted to make people think that Saddam was out-foxing the UN and their efforts which was just a bold face lie made up for the sole purpose of justifing Bush's war of choice.

Once the war was effected it also became clear that Halliburton was being given an open check to secure the oil and was awarded many other special contracts to support troop activity, it was then clear of a conflict of interest because the Vice President was still closely linked with that company and that they were conducting projects in Iraq that took much longer to plan and prepare then was our new war on terror, pre- 9-11 planning for the war on Iraq had been in the works shortly after Desert Storm ended, at the private think tanks of Halliburton.

That fact which took place after the war was underway shed a new light on the whole motivational aspects for the war, which facts were not clearly known about by anyone else before it got underway.

I would agree that some of the intelligence used in planning the war was not correct, I think Bush clearly expected a fast victory and being able to establish a user friendly government to place Saddam, but it is evident they had not expected or prepared for looting and the insurgency protests that became more and more violent. That might not have been Bush's fault but the rest is his fault, and when I say fault I do not mean to say he was missinformed, but that he was the one who intended to miss-inform the public, Congress, and the United Nations. He simply allowed Halliburtan to consume our tax money for failed reconstruction projects, for organizing some of the supply stuff for our troops while Halliburtan also secured the oil fields for their future benifit.

I do not think all the real questions about Irag have been answered and I see no one even asking those questions, none of those TV talk show hosts dare to ask him directly, and Kerry as far as I know is being a lot nicer about it then he should be.

If I were running for President the Technocrats would absolutly vow that if elected that Halliburton would depart Iraq and all the books checked to see if we should get some of that spent tax moeny back.

We need someone who can re-think the landscape of the post war problem in Iraq and we can start by triming the first Bush in site.

Technosoul.

Sep 26, 2004, 04:47 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	like i said before, i also agree that community service shouldn't be mandatory. of course, he's saying that high school students should have to perform community service in order to graduate. which, i hope you'd agree, it a lot different than requiring grown adults to perform mandatory community service. it seems that you're taking his statement way beyond its actual context. community service is good for communities.. you look at inner cities and the places kids can go to escape the streets are community services like the ymca, etc.. where is the crime in saying that high school kids should have to perform some community service as a graduation requirement? i remember having to do this as a requirement for my confirmation (i'm catholic).. as a whiny kid, i definitely bitched and moaned at first, but afterwards i was glad that i had to do it - because i did do something good for my community. funny thing is that community service makes you feel more of a part of your community, which produces better communities. maybe, for example, if rich kids had to help out in less affluent neighborhoods, they wouldn't grow up viewing poorer people as subhumans - as many adults presently do. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Sep 26, 2004, 05:11 pm	#43 (permalink) (top)
Compugasm Son of X51 Location: San Diego Posts: 3,889	I think we'll just have to wait and see, what service meets govt approval. Because I also belive, you should do something. However, I wouldn't want to end up stamping license plates for a diploma. But, I'd be willing to work 10-20hrs for free lunch. Death to Videodrome! Long live The New flesh!

Sep 26, 2004, 05:42 pm	#45 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	WAIT JUST A GOD DAMN MINUTE! Okay, whats this crap in that "right track-wrong track" ad about how Bush has no plan to get out of Iraq and how Kerry is going to do such and such...Bush has had ALL those things in effect for months before this ad came out! I dont even like Bush! But the Kerry campaign just told a deliberate lie by saying they are going to do such and such because Bush has not even thought about it when in fact he has been doing it for over half a year! so we are a few months behind, big deal, the initial time estimates were optimistic and underestimated the hinderance that the insurgency would be. So Bush is a bumbling, misguided idiot. Yeah, but Kerry is a god damn liar and I would call him that to his face. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Sep 26, 2004, 05:46 pm	#47 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,589	My sons are active in community service, as are my wife and I. We volunteer in a our local schools, work with local community associations and so forth. We are part of our community and we support it. No big deal really. I can tell you what mandatory community service would mean in my neighborhood. It would be just another tool of patronage and probably graft. The local unions would arrange with the local political power brokers that their jobs were safe, so the army of "community servants" would become part of the local fiefdom of local ward leaders. Conscription for what ever purpose is but another form of serfdom. Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Sep 26, 2004, 05:48 pm	#48 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	the only thing as far as bush goes, is that he's lost credibility. sure, he can say he'll go get international support, but how does the rhetoric compare to his track record? big deal that bush has been saying these things for months. actions speak louder than words. unless you're a psychic, nobody knows exactly how kerry would be, even though his track record is one of a multilateralist - which stands in stark contrast to bush's record. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Sep 26, 2004, 05:55 pm	#49 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,589	No, no no. Words speak louder than actions! If you haven't seen this already, it is worth a look. George W. Bush: Words Speak Louder Than Actions Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Sep 26, 2004, 05:57 pm	#50 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	Actions... several other countries, like 17, according to a Brit foreign secretary, are on the ground, and something like 30 have already pledged troops. We have mercenaries and Special Forces on the ground training Iraqi troops and police. In the latest engagements I hear about on the news, the Iraqi troops out number the Marines that go with them on the missions. Are Fox and CNN haveing delusions? Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Sep 26, 2004, 06:04 pm	#51 (permalink) (top)
Compugasm Son of X51 Location: San Diego Posts: 3,889	I think your all watching a TV series called "CSI:Fallujah" or "Real World:Tikrit" filmed in Arizona. Death to Videodrome! Long live The New flesh!

Sep 26, 2004, 06:20 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	how many MAJOR countries are helping us? the british contingent is fewer than 1,000 if i'm not mistaken. same with the aussies... whatever remains amounts to a whole lot of - not much. and, how much help are they helping towards the financial costs of reconstruction? also, pledges are meaningless until they actually happen. case in point: everyone pledged money for afghanistan, nobody delivered. you know much about the kickbacks we've given to the tiny countries that have helped us? fyi, the iraqi troops are helping the insurgents. latest story was that our handpicked general for the sunni section was arrested on suspicion that he was helping them. they're always talking about training troops, but that never actually happens. and, these people they're training are completely incompetent when push comes to shove, meaning that our guys have to do all the heavy lifting. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Sep 26, 2004, 07:20 pm	#54 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	So what, you are saying they would help Kerry more? Kerry's f**ing point was that Bush was acting completely alone, which, regardless of the degree* to which other countries are helping him, is a blatant lie. The point Im making is that contrary to Kerry's claims, they have been asked to help, and they have given only token participation. Kerry claim they HAVE NOT been asked and WOULD become EQUAL PARTNERS if given the opportunity. Bush is already giving it to them and they are blowing him on. Again, Bush=moron, Kerry=liar And remember, Kerry voted for the war, and then recanted, and then un recanted. Inconsistency is a mark of people who are dishonest and up to something bad. Ill take an idiot with good intentions over someone who wants to f* us over on purpose any day of the week and twice on the f*ing weekend. Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Sep 26, 2004, 08:28 pm	#55 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	he voted for the war on the assumption that we were under the threat of imminent attack. if we, in fact, were under the threat of imminent attack, then his vote was the right thing to do. despite all the spin, that does not mean that kerry authorized the decision to invade iraq. bush was the liar who pushed the case for pre-emptive war on the grounds that iraq was an imminent threat. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Sep 27, 2004, 02:30 am	#56 (permalink) (top)
bugsbunny04 Untrained Fodder Location: Alabama Posts: 1,354	Bishop: Do you really beleive that line of bull shit? I hope not. Kerry knew the score. Bush didnt. Bush is a moron. Dick, Condi and Rummy say "hey, lets do this" and he's like "sounds good to me, but hold on, Im not done reading Beetle Baily". And when somebody sais "wait just a god damn minute!" Cheney sais "go fuck yourself". Clean toe caps and a filthy mouth! Low morals and high morale!

Sep 27, 2004, 09:07 am	#57 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	at the end of the day, bush hit the red button, not kerry. despite the administration's to satisfy congress's request for solid evidence of iraqi wmd's. inspectors were on the ground for a reason. we simply didn't know for sure whether/not there were wmd, and that's why the inspectors were there. against that backdrop, it was logical to suspect that iraq still did have wmd's. and if that were the case, then the president must have the authority to take action if he were to know we were facing the threat of a truly imminent attack. do i think kerry would've launched some random war like bush did? not at all, he's much smarter than that. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Sep 27, 2004, 10:43 pm	#58 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,936	The UN inspectors were basically just checking to see if Saddam secretly constructing or planning to construct a nuclear program, and if he had disposed of all the bio-chemicals that England had supplied them with many years ago before Desert Storm. The UN never thought or stated they thought he already had a nuclear program or WNDs set up or nearly ready to go. The main logic was to make sure Saddam was not massing close to Kuwait or any other neighboring country for another attempt to expand thier property line. It was evident that Saddam did not have missles powerful enough to reach Ameircan soil and it was only Rumsfield and the Vice President who attempted to scare people that a nuclear bomb could be tiny enough pack into a suitcase. The fact is that Saddam had not violated any of the resolutions set forth by the UN nor did the inspectors find any pratical evidence to the contrary after wide spread investigation and years of monitoring them. Those facts were stated by the UN inspection team even before Bush gave his word to attack. So the UN was not inspecting Iraq because they thought they already had WMDs but so that Saddam would not attempt to get any or develope them. The Bush team attempted to make people think that Saddam was out-foxing the UN and their efforts which was just a bold face lie made up for the sole purpose of justifing Bush's war of choice. Once the war was effected it also became clear that Halliburton was being given an open check to secure the oil and was awarded many other special contracts to support troop activity, it was then clear of a conflict of interest because the Vice President was still closely linked with that company and that they were conducting projects in Iraq that took much longer to plan and prepare then was our new war on terror, pre- 9-11 planning for the war on Iraq had been in the works shortly after Desert Storm ended, at the private think tanks of Halliburton. That fact which took place after the war was underway shed a new light on the whole motivational aspects for the war, which facts were not clearly known about by anyone else before it got underway. I would agree that some of the intelligence used in planning the war was not correct, I think Bush clearly expected a fast victory and being able to establish a user friendly government to place Saddam, but it is evident they had not expected or prepared for looting and the insurgency protests that became more and more violent. That might not have been Bush's fault but the rest is his fault, and when I say fault I do not mean to say he was missinformed, but that he was the one who intended to miss-inform the public, Congress, and the United Nations. He simply allowed Halliburtan to consume our tax money for failed reconstruction projects, for organizing some of the supply stuff for our troops while Halliburtan also secured the oil fields for their future benifit. I do not think all the real questions about Irag have been answered and I see no one even asking those questions, none of those TV talk show hosts dare to ask him directly, and Kerry as far as I know is being a lot nicer about it then he should be. If I were running for President the Technocrats would absolutly vow that if elected that Halliburton would depart Iraq and all the books checked to see if we should get some of that spent tax moeny back. We need someone who can re-think the landscape of the post war problem in Iraq and we can start by triming the first Bush in site. Technosoul.