Deadliest Words- HR 163 (Updated)

This bill, HR 163 (just search "HR 163"), is exactly what I have been talking about. It is the Return of the Draft. That's in capitals because Michael Moore should make a movie of it.

It is The Draft and nothing less. Men AND women will be required to serve two years in the uniformed services or homeland or community service positions that the Thief-in-Chief deems neccessary. But that is if Bush is reelected. If Kerry is elected, I sincerely hope that he does not agree with the representive's voting (IF they vote for the Draft.)

Lots of ifs. Only time will tell really. And if time does tell that President Kerry enacts the Draft, I was wrong and I won't be afraid to admit that. I can't avoid the truth, and at the moment, he looks to be the lesser of two evils.

If this is will never happen, which I hope does not, good. If it does happen, it will be terrible.

To make one thing clear: I did not get this information from Michael Moore. I didn't think anybody would think that, but apparently one person did, so just to make that clear to all.

But if this is simply "nonsense" to some, how so? Is it not a bill? Is there not enough idiots in Washington to make a bad decision?

Some call the American military "stretched", and to be honest, I will be the first one to admit I don't know the exact number of enlisted troops or how much is "stretched" for that number. But if the government really wants more soldiers, let them have their advertisements. Get people interested instead of fearing the armed forces. If they join the army that way, it was thier decision (maybe with some influence) but it's still their decision. And that's what we pride ourselves on here in America. Our ability to make our own decisions.

Instead of being forced to do something, why don't they increase a little spending in advertisements. Who knows? Maybe it'll be quite extensive. It can give people a career and satisfy the armed forces' "need" for more troops. Couldn't that be done?

It might work for everybody.