|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
Selective Service
|
| The draft is completely unacceptable. |
|
| The draft is acceptable in time of war. |
|
| There should always be a draft/mandatory serice for all. |
|
| Other (Please Explain) |
|
Total Votes : 45
|
(last vote on : 5/2/2010 1:44:06 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/3/2010 3:36:13 PM
|
|
|
car2ner
Posts: 3178
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: just north of Florida
Status: offline
|
In any organization there will be scoundrals and I guess the army rangers is no exception. Any organization will take people of character to work. The military does help stretch our youngsters to see that they can do more than they ever expected and can handle discipline, like it or not. But if someone's internal character is twisted basic training isn't going to fix that.
I am concerned with the multiple deployments, men and women serving their time in hot zones away from home, coming home for a brief moment and then leaving again. There is little time to heal and reconnect. I don't think we need a draft but I do wonder if our service men and women are being stretched too far.
For the record, I am proud of the military background of my family.
_____________________________
http://www.car2ner.2ya.com
http://car2ner.imagekind.com
"May your days be long and your hardships few".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/3/2010 3:50:15 PM
|
|
|
Zuniceratops
Posts: 5
Joined: 3/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jhuperetes
Mandatory draft.
Both genders.
All, over 18 & under 35.
2 years.
No excuses.
Done.
Both genders? Who will take care of the children?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/3/2010 5:01:45 PM
|
|
|
GodandGuns
Posts: 1507
Joined: 10/1/2008
From: The Sound of Madness
Status: offline
|
they dont force you out. you are told if you will have a secondary plan of action. and you will have Will's made out. its the same thing. you mean as a civilian you dont have it set who will take your kids if you die or heaven forbid are unable to care for them again?
military is strict. not everyone can adhere to the rules and values we have. is why of all the people in the USA, less than 0.5% will ever serve time in any branch. many simply adhere to no one will tell me what to do yet stroll off to a daily 9-5'er and have them tell you what to do.
same as with a draft, it is nasty in that regards. people are forced into something they do not want to do. i would rather serve with people who want to be there than some that were forced. but if they do make a draft, make it at 18 years old and go to 20 or 21. but give them something for it also. pay for 3 years of school or even give them our sweet sweet post 9-11 GI Bill.
_____________________________
FOR THOSE WHO HAVE FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A TASTE THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW.
The Medic, the unsung hero on every battlefield. It is impossible to imagine the mental/emotional trauma inside a Medic, and there is no triage for that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/3/2010 5:47:17 PM
|
|
|
GraceyGirl
Posts: 448
Joined: 6/4/2006
Status: offline
|
GodnGuns - I appreciate your quote like you can't imagine. I was a specialized 68 Whiskey for six years and I can't begin to tell you the stuff I saw in THIS country. Some people are never going to understand - combat medicine isn't something that only takes place overseas, it isn't only where there's bullets and artillery flying. I've dug people out from under trains, rescued people from buildings and trees, and seen things none of us would want our wives and sisters and daughters to see.
But in the end - regardless of the gore and trauma and things I could describe that would surely get me TOSsed, in the end, I was the vessel through which God worked.
A vessel - with a sidearm strapped to my leg. His hands - healing the ones I could, and defending those who couldn't help themselves. His heart - aching and hurting as i once stared down the barrel of a pistol.
In the end - lives were saved. In the end - a soul was redeemed. In the end - my obedience and my sacrifice was my Hero's song.
Thank you GnG - for the recognition that most of us never get b/c we aren't ground troops, we aren't fighter pilots, and we aren't barking orders. We're just the dirty, bloody soldiers who answer the anguished cry of - MEDIC!!
_____________________________
God called. He'd like His church back.
~John Wimber~
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/4/2010 12:25:08 AM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 634
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
That all may be true but it kind of leaves what's best for children out of the picture. Who cares how the children might feel about not just one but *both* of their parents being gone? Anybody who would want to stay home and care for their own child is probably just lazy and immoral.
If people choose to leave their children with others for an extended period of time, OK, that's a choice. People have choices even if I disagree with them. But for the government to *force* that kind of situation? We don't often agree, but I certainly agree with you on this subject. I do remember the days when women were forced out if they got pregnant and I'm not sure that's the answer either. I personally think the government should alternate deployments of military parents. Then one would be home. That wouldn't be great on the marriage, I'm sure, but it would definitely be better for the kids involved.
And of course in a draft situation there is no choice involved except on the part of the government.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/4/2010 1:58:35 AM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 997
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
I haven't read the whole thread. In fact, haven't been here for a while. I think the current system of selective service works fine. While there is a requirement to register, there has not been a draft for quite some. The all volunteer military is the best way to go. Having served, I would rather not serve with those who are forced to be there.
When I graduated high school I swore I was never going to join the military. I joined five years later because I was on the nowehere track to life. I learned to push myself harder than I ever imagined I could. I learned that I was serving my nation for a greater purpose than myself. I learned to shoot and how to survive should I have to and to tend to the wounds of a fallen buddy.
_____________________________
A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/4/2010 3:33:10 AM
|
|
|
David-West
Posts: 113
Joined: 3/11/2007
From: The State of Jefferson
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GraceyGirl
So do you also apply your libertiarian views to taxes and compulsory education?
In short... Absolutely. But the merits of anarcho-capitalism are a subject for another thread.
quote:
The problem with your perception about involuntary servitude and slavery is that slaves were OWNED, not paid a wage, and had no rights. Soldiers are paid a wage, belong to themselves under the contract of the government, can marry, birth, divorce, worship freely, etc. Slaves didn't have those rights.
Semantics. That argument depends on how you interpret "owned." Sure, they get wages, choose what to do in their free time, and have some say in things, but the fact still stands that, in many ways, they are owned. They HAVE to serve in the military or face punishment and they HAVE to deploy when told to. Slavery, no matter how sugar coated, is still slavery. Or at least involuntary servitude.
quote:
As far as whether or not the draft is constitutional, see Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
quote:
The Congress shall have Power To:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; (except that Congress reauthorizes allocation of funds)
To provide and maintain a Navy; (including the US Marine Corps)
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
I'd say that pretty well indicates that the founding fathers, in the writing of our Constitution, certainly allowed for a draft, and regardless of opinion, personal moral conflict, or emotional reaction allows for such a draft to be found to be Constitutional.
I don't see anything int the first three bolded provisions that say they can make anyone do anything against their will. It sounds to me like congress can raise money to maintain and regulate the military. It wouldn't have been very hard for them to have written in a provision allowing for conscription, but they didn't. If conscription was their intent, why didn't they just write it in there? That's a pretty major point of contention to just leave up to speculation.
The fourth provision you bolded on there seems closer to allowing for a draft, but again, since it doesn't say they can force people, it would make the most sense to me to simply interpret it as saying "congress can call upon all willing able bodied men 17-45 years of age to work for them in an official capacity." Regardless of what it means, though, I think it is also important to note what it says the militia can be called forth for: to "suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." That's something we haven't had to do in a long, LONG time. This certainly wouldn't have authorized a draft during WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam.
The fifth bolded provision, again, just says that congress can pay to arm and train the militia, and that they can govern the militia members working directly for them. Maybe it's just a case of seeing what you're looking for (thought that's a two way street), but I just don't see how any of that can be interpreted as meaning people can be forced into the army.
To be fair, according to all established case law you're right. But I will still always argue that it is not only immoral, but in violation of every principle the country was founded upon. So... people are allowed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but... only until the government decides they have other purposes for them? It just doesn't gel.
Now, constitutionality aside, I want to know how one can justify forcing someone (who has committed no crime) into a job as a Christian. Even if performing that Job is right thing to do. After all, not even God forces people's hand when it comes to salvation and doing the right thing (and please, lets NOT turn this into a debate about pre-destination  ).
Also, for those of you advocating mandatory military service, what about people who take it upon themselves to insure they are ready and able to protect their country? I'm talking about the kind of people who are armed and train as a militia. If they do that of their own accord and feel that is the best way they can protect their country, why should they have to serve in the "official" military? Is actual governmental service the ONLY way to serve your country?
_____________________________
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon." - Rorschach
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/4/2010 3:52:29 AM
|
|
|
RJR_fan
Posts: 801
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: RTP, in sunny NC USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think that if a country feels it must resort to slavery to defend itself it probably needs to step back and consider whether or not it (or at least, what it's trying to do) is worth fighting for. If no one is willing to fight the war, then it's probably time the government saw some significant downsizing.
What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Smedley Butler, the most decorated US serviceman in our history, saw the light soon after retiring, and learning to think for himself. War is a racket that makes a few people incredibly wealthy, while costing tens, or hundreds of thousands of people their lives, health, limbs, and sanity. Click on the link to read the whole speech. Here's the first few paragraphs:
quote:
WAR is a racket. It always has been
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
_____________________________
Blogging my way through the Turkish New Testament
Meet my beloved mentor, RJR
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/4/2010 7:53:07 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 3528
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
I agree with the mandatory draft for all ages -- no excuses. Having served in the US military for 26 years and have spent 18 months of that time in Vietnam, I can only say that I definitely not the same. The military made me a better person and a stronger Christian because of the many, many, Christian soldiers I was able to get to know and interact with during my time in. It was a great experience and I don't regret having made it my career.
Would you feel the same way if you came home with PTSD, alcohol addiction, and a new tendency towards violence?
quote:
That all may be true but it kind of leaves what's best for children out of the picture. Who cares how the children might feel about not just one but *both* of their parents being gone?
Yup. If you think of yourself as "pro-family," you really ought to reconsider this position.
Actually, any military service can be a huge strain on a family. Some families can handle it, but others -including many who chose to be in the military- can't. I can say without a doubt that my marriage would not survive a deployment, and I don't see how it's right to effectively force me into a divorce and my wife into deep depression. "Pro-family" ought to mean more than just "anti-porn" and "anti-gay marriage."
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/4/2010 12:43:52 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 466
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: David-West
quote:
You are ignoring the context in which the 13th Amendment came into existence, and in doing so, you erroneously understand its dictates. The 13th Amendment was not conceived in the context of precluding a draft to defend this nation in a war, or a draft to assist this nation involved in a conflagration. The 13 Amendment was a post Civil War amendment and its dictates are best understood by examining the amendment in this context.
So your assumption the 13th Amendment's dictates render illegal a draft is false. Consequently, this renders your claim the draft as being unconstitutional likely false or false in its entirety.
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation"
I DO believe that good men can wage a righteous war (though much care must be taken in doing so), but if they use a draft to bolster their numbers then what has it all been for? It becomes a sort of Pyrrhic victory. You go from a situation in which good leaders inspire good men (and even if some aren't "good," one can't be held completely accountable for the actions of a few rogue subordinates) to fight evil to a situation in which (ostensibly) good men USED people to defeat evil. Sure, you defeated the "threat," but at what cost? As Christians, does our victory lie in literally winning the war or in how we conduct ourselves in battle?
quote:
The text clearly states that slavery and involuntary servitude is illegal, and what is conscription if not involuntary servitude? So what if they likely weren't referring to the draft when they wrote it?
Your argument assumes the words "slavery and involuntary servitude" in the 13th Amendment include the draft. This assumption is false. Words in the U.S. Constitution have meaning, and the meaning is not what you can presently attribute to those words but rather the meaning of the words and phrases in the U.S. Constitution came into existence at the time the provision in question was created and ratified. At the time the 13th Amendment was drafted and ratified, the words "slavery and involuntary servitude" did not include the draft and consequently, such words cannot include the draft today.
quote:
It's arguable that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," was intended by many within it's historical context to only refer to white, male landowners, but does that mean that people who don't fit that category shouldn't point out that it IS in the constitution, and that it clearly says "ALL men"?
This is a non-parallel example. You are referring to a non-legal document which had the purpose of explaining why the U.S. colonies were seeking to secede from the government of Britain, and such words do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. This rebuttal is predicated upon a fiction, myth, because such words appear in the Declaration of Independence and not the U.S. Constitution. You are not going to make a convincing argument by referring to and relying upon fictional facts.
quote:
Your logic just seems to be of the same sort that makes people think the second amendment was written solely with hunting and muskets in mind (though, to be fair, it is ABUNDANTLY by researching the historical context that this is NOT the case).
First of all, this remark is a red herring and irrelevant. It is an irrelevant example. Second, my reasoning does not lead to this inference, so please spare me your strawman argument.
quote:
[If someone doesn't want to fight in a war, regardless of their reason, what on earth gives you the right to force them into service?
The U.S. Constitution. Specifically the following provisions in the U.S. Constitution.
To declare War...To raise and support Armies...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
These three provisions appear in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. These are the powers for the government, specifically Congress, to exercise. One of those powers is to raise and support Armies. An important emphasis is placed by myself on the word "raise." To "raise" an army will undoubtedly include conscrpition, i.e. drafting people into the army. Raising an army was nothing new, and historically raising an army included, in some form or another, conscription. Conscription, as part of raising an army, is as old as Hammurabi. Conscription persisted through the Roman Empire, the middles ages in Europe, and importantly in England.
Prior to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, conscrption was a power most if not all adult males in the colonies were familiar with precisely because the colonies instituted a draft to create state militias in an effort to successfully negotiate the Revolutionary War. The Framers and founding generation understood this provision to grant to Congress the authority to institute a draft. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison all advocated for the passage of legislation requiring all men be registered for service and assigned to military units for training. These men certainly did not understand or perceive such legislative efforts to be a power Congress lacked.
Undoubtedly Congress was vested with an authority the colonies had during the Revolutionary War, and it was the power to draft, and such a power is included in the phrase of "To raise armies."
Second of all, logic and common sense dictates such a conclusion. It is unfathomable to think Congress was vested with the authority to declare war and not provided with any power to effectively wage the war they have declared, i.e. incapable to draft men to fight in the war. It is inconceivable to think Congress has the authority to raise armies but not given the power to draft when a reliance upon volunteers is not sufficient to constitute an army at all.
Third, and finally, the necessary and proper clause, which I cited above, justifies the institution of a draft. Instituting a draft is necessary and proper for Congress to execute its powers of raising an army and declaring war.
Therefore, under the U.S. Constitution Congress is vested with the authority to institute a draft and your suggestion they do not have this authority is false in light of this argument I just espoused.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/4/2010 1:31:26 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1985
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
Would you feel the same way if you came home with PTSD, alcohol addiction, and a new tendency towards violence? Probably not, but the fact is I come home a better person than when I left and of all the people I know personally who served in the military none of them came home with the ailments you mentioned. I kinda think those who came home with PTSD, alcohol addiction, and a new tendency toward violence are the exception because, while I don't doubt that there are those who did, I personally never met one who did.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
"Behold, the days are coming," declares the Lord God, "when I will send a famine on the land -- not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. -- Amos 8:11 (ESV)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/4/2010 1:52:32 PM
|
|
|
Crushmaster
Posts: 760
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: The South, In The Good Ol' U.S. of A.
Status: offline
|
I don't really see anything wrong with the draft (men, as only men should be in the military), unless your religious beliefs wouldn't allow you to sign up.
God bless,
Crushmaster.
_____________________________
http://www.areyouagoodperson.org
(2 Corinthians 5:17) - "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
Christ is Lord and King! To Him I give all glory and honor.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/4/2010 2:35:16 PM
|
|
|
car2ner
Posts: 3178
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: just north of Florida
Status: offline
|
quote:
War is a racket that makes a few people incredibly wealthy, while costing tens, or hundreds of thousands of people their lives, health, limbs, and sanity.
My husband put it something like this: That a soldier is the last person who wants to go to war... but he will if it is needed.
War may be a racket but it is something we will have up until God Himself remakes the world after armagedon. So we have to have warriors.
_____________________________
http://www.car2ner.2ya.com
http://car2ner.imagekind.com
"May your days be long and your hardships few".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/5/2010 5:07:37 PM
|
|
|
Crushmaster
Posts: 760
Joined: 7/21/2009
From: The South, In The Good Ol' U.S. of A.
Status: offline
|
If you two would like, we could start a topic on this subject or something of the ilk (like, men/women's roles in general).
God bless,
Crushmaster.
_____________________________
http://www.areyouagoodperson.org
(2 Corinthians 5:17) - "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
Christ is Lord and King! To Him I give all glory and honor.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/6/2010 8:10:53 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1985
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GodandGuns
i still say lets be like isreal, make all serve 2 years min.
I agree. I lived in Turkey and the military is highly respected in that country and all men are expected to serve a certain amount of time (I can't remember how long). Deferments are legal and available though, but all have to serve eventually. A Turkish instructor of mine kept getting deferments, but finally had to enter military service in his late 30's. I'm not making a moral judgment on that, just telling a story. 
_____________________________
greatdivide46
"Behold, the days are coming," declares the Lord God, "when I will send a famine on the land -- not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. -- Amos 8:11 (ESV)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/6/2010 5:55:17 PM
|
|
|
RJR_fan
Posts: 801
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: RTP, in sunny NC USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
I lived in Turkey and the military is highly respected in that country and all men are expected to serve a certain amount of time (I can't remember how long).
Nobody messes with the Turks. Or the Swiss, for that matter. "An armed society is a polite society," R. A. Heinlein wrote.
_____________________________
Blogging my way through the Turkish New Testament
Meet my beloved mentor, RJR
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Selective Service - 3/7/2010 12:15:19 AM
|
|
|
B-Swan
Posts: 83
Joined: 7/3/2005
From: Indiana
Status: offline
|
First of all, I do greatly appreciate those of you who have and are serving in the military. There are several in my family who have served (both grandpa's, dad, couple uncles, brother-in-law, etc), as well as a few friends. However...
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
kids will see more to life than xbox or wii or ps3. sadly too many [parents try to hover and smother kids till they cant grow and mature
I would like to point out that military service is not the only way for a young person to reach maturity and good character. The Christian families (can't speak for unbelievers) most likely to wholly object to any sort of military service are also highly unlikely to be the lazy video-game-playing slobs precisely because they do take their faith very seriously.
*Some* kids could use a dose of the tough life. Others will be solid, tax-paying, hard-working citizens whether or not they've been in the military.
I agree strongly with this post. Aside from the family members/friends I mentioned, I also have worked on the civilian side for almost 10 years and every day am around dozens of current or retired military people.
The vast majority of them are not what I would consider "good character" people. Alcoholics, addicted smokers, using swear words and innuendo like they are their primary language and English just fills in the blanks, and most don't seem to respect people who haven't had service time. They also make a lot of decisions, but they routinely rush into those decisions without taking the time to make sure they've got the necessary or correct information (causing people like me who had the information they needed, but whom they didn't ask, to have to publicly "clarify" their decision). They also almost all have some level of disability/sickness and/or "issues" when they get out.
Note: These observations are not directed at nor criticisms of anyone here, cause I don't know you. These are simply my observations based on the dozens I personally know.
When I look at all that, plus take into account that our military is (I feel) not led by people who look to God for how the military should be used, I cannot justify requiring anyone to go through that...especially one who's been a good student, who's been a "good person", and who has dreams/aspirations of what they want to do (maybe even what God wants them to do).
I think sometimes those who call for the mandatory draft think nobody graduating high school has character or knows what they want to do. But for those that do, you're basically telling them "it doesn't matter if you have character and know what you want to do or not cause you're going away for 2 years no questions asked...and oh yeah, some/all of the above observations may apply to you when you get out." Again, not directed at anyone in particular here, just a general thought.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
Let freedom ring...let the whole world sing...it's independence day!!!! 
Who cares how the children might feel about not just one but *both* of their parents being gone? Anybody who would want to stay home and care for their own child is probably just lazy and immoral. 
