Two genders, and when it comes to what it takes to do certain jobs- it matters.

You are making assumptions that the facts simply do not back up.

Regardless of the fact that women, as a whole, are unable to meet the basic physical requirements, they are still welcome to join voluntarily. Even with the liberal lowered physical requirement standards, many women STILL cannot pass muster.

So what's your point?

But we can all certainly agree that the liberal school systems have done their level best to emasculate the male population, so between that and the constant indoctrination that their own country is not worthy of being defended . . .

Quite the Catch 22 liberals have created. The "New & Improved" Woke military has caused them to be woefully behind on their recruitment needs, so if the need should arise, a Draft will be the only solution.

I just reread your argument and noticed you’re against women being drafted because they can volunteer.

So can men, so why should only they sign up for selective service?

True, you’ve already said many are physically unable to qualify, yet we could simply institute the same physical standards we use for women to serve volunteering to draft women could we not?

Sorry, I just don’t see your logic but I understand your point of women being physically inferior to men in general. Which of course ignores my argument that we don’t just need women for hand to hand combat and carrying heavy loads.

I never said I am against women being drafted . . .

Has anyone ever told you that you're cute when you're triggered?

You are so far off the original point of the OP so as to not even be in the same country anymore.

Liberals- knowing they are sooo smart, their assumptions must always be correct.

Except my original premise was women should be drafted too and he disagreed.

Meaning he IS against women being drafted.

So, not putting words into his mouth. Thank you for retracting your claim.

Oh, well then you remain wrong then.

Because he very much disagreed with my premise that women should be drafted too.

As you conceded.

"Whatever makes you feel better"

OCDC is 100% correct. I haven't been able to figure out if this is because you struggle with comprehension, or if being contrary is all you have to live for.

There's a lot you can't figure out

Going on about a typo for four days? That's sad.

"At least I’m man enough to take my suspensions, you leftist coward"

No you don't. You get around your suspensions by using your alts like bidensucksc__k, BFY, and CBNS

Cool! Then women should be drafted too.

I’m glad we’re all agreed.

There's nothing to assume . . . if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it really doesn't matter if it's a cow.

Alrighty then. You continue making assumptions and I’ll continue voting in Republican primaries. And I’ll continue voting in conservative-to-moderate Democrats when my peers are only interested incompetent con artists who cry at the Supreme Court when they don’t get their way.

There is more to military work than simple physical activity. And with technology advancing, most military personnel doesn’t require hand to hand fighting or lugging heavy equipment but rather more technical aspects that women can fulfill.

Even during the draft, we drafted medical and technical personnel while excluding many women from those same fields.

During World War II, only about 66% of men who were of age were drafted. And fewer Americans met WWII standards during Vietnam and they were lowered which resulted in a high number of casualties. So it’s not just a thing we’ve done for women or because men today are emasculated. We’ve had a nutritional issue for decades that the government has tried to address and has all but abandoned.

My point is obvious. It seems the solution is to not omit women from the draft. I agree a majority of women will not serve due to physical limitations but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any women who cannot. Or at least meet the standards we now place for women in the military. Women being required to serve would also make the trans argument, whether for or against, moot.

I agree at least that there could be a draft if military numbers fall but I disagree it will be due to a any sort of war. Even when we’re not at war, we need personnel, and should even that number falter, the US could re-institute the draft. The falling number in military personnel isn’t from massive deaths or people not meeting physical standards; but rather the view that the military and government do not honor the provisions and entitlements to those who’ve served.

So, if we want to avoid the draft; scaring people about bringing it back won’t do any good. But keeping the promises to our veterans in and out of service would do a lot more in raising interest for people to join and thus negate the need to do so.

Look at all those pointless words, given that women can still volunteer to join the military.

I know, I know- libs are all about "fairness" and "equity" and "blah blah blah". If only your solutions weren't always so counterproductive.

"So, if we want to avoid the draft; scaring people about bringing it back won’t do any good."

Who is doing this? I know of no current talk concerning a Draft.

"But keeping the promises to our veterans in and out of service would do a lot more in raising interest for people to join and thus negate the need to do so."

The ONLY solution to that problem is to vote every Democrat out of office. If you are serious about such a solution, now you know what to do next month.

And while something like that would certainly help, it would not solve the entire problem, which as mentioned, is a corrupt liberal education system that tears down the very country that needs a military to defend it.

Again, liberal solutions are counterproductive, making them no solution at all.

Have you looked into WHY Republicans turn the stuff coming from Democrats down? When do Democrats EVER not pack all sorts of nonsense pork into EVERY bill they come up with?

The line item inventory of bills that come from Democrats consistently contains useless, and even destructive, spending.

As I said, the ONLY solution to this, and many other problems, is to completely neuter the Democrat Party, after which Conservatives can oust the RINOs that cause as many problems as the Democrats do.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with Democrats or Republicans and the two parties trade and swing between policies often in the last century to keep them from suffering the fate of their party predecessors.

Both parties support liberal and conservative policies which are often opposed to different issues. And no, I’m not saying just RINOs are liberals either. In fact, many America First policies are thoroughly liberal in nature. And the idea that consolidation of individual departments of government is a actually a form of liberalism disguised as fiscal conservatism; when it is neither. Nor are the meaningful tax breaks for only the elites conservative policy as well and appear counter-intuitive to this desire to depower or remove corrupt individuals in our government that you would call elites.

To believe that only Democrats support liberal policies or have wasteful spending is just ignoring the fact that Republicans do much of the same. Or to ignore the conservative contributions of the Democrat party and the so-called RINOs you so vehemently despise.

The party predecessors didn’t ever go anywhere. They merely absorbed into an existing party after dramatically losing public support for unpopular policies. But even these policies still remain today. Watered down and certainly recontextualized but there is no way to remove these undesirable elements of our society.

Not without exterminating them, of course. Which, as a good and patriotic American such as yourself would be appalled to stoop to the level of dictators and despots just to see your version of America achieved.

And we’ve yet to see any real attempt of that by Democrats but I would nonetheless sympathize for your need to exaggerate your claims of being culturally villainized so long as you’re not arguing some violent and traitorous solution.

WHY won't reality cooperate with the liberal world view?????

WHY?!?!?!?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/d4TT69wtiTw

Thank God for the Patriarchy.

If you desire the end of the Democratic Party, you need only look to history to see just how that may happen.

Before there were Democrats and Republicans we had… what did we have? Whigs and Dem-Reps? Whigs pretty much absorbed into the Republican Party.

Ah, the Federalisrs, here we go. Believed in nationalism, centralized bank, fiscally conservative… branded as traitors for allying with a former enemy that strongly opposed our independence; which was counter intuitive to their desire for an independent economy.

So, who does that sound like to you today if you were to assign those types of policies that lead to a total collapse of their party?

I’m at least curious to your interpretation.

Going to jump in right here to give my 2 cents. I agree we should not have political parties. That is just causing division and weakens the population and strengths the elitist.

Divide and conquer:
"There are two ways to lead people and drive impact.

One way is by dividing people. Create a mutual enemy and lead a crusade to conquer it. Turn it into a life or death situation ; the sense of urge unleashes unconditional support. Conquering, winning at-any-cost, is all that matters."

Both political parties have done a great job at making citizens enemies of other citizens. So here we are fighting their wars on a meme site.

I do not see why, and would love to see, political candidates running and not disclosing what party they belong (because there will not be any). Just plain stating what the will bring to the table.

I’ve made such suggestions before that we eliminate (R)s and (D)s by politicians everywhere if not somehow the entire party system.

Not to diminish their usefulness, of course, but it does appear they’re a far more cons than pro in our current party structures.

So, want to end racism, stop calling people by their skin color. Want to end corrupted government, stop being divided.

I am done here.

"It's been just men back in my day being drafted and it will stay that way"
-Some WW2, Korean, or Vietnam war veteran probably

Things change. Otherwise we’d still be part of the United Kingdom.

Just because you are required to register, doesn’t mean you will be forced into service. I would have thought a scholar like you would have known that. You can always claim you had an asthmatic episode when you were a child

Well I really thought you were gonna make a bone spurs comment.

Were you alive the last time someone was actually drafted into service?

Sounds like you are shivering with the tought of being drafted. And your opinion of wheter people should opt out of being drafted is meaningless, has no value. It is not going to change just because you chose fear to rule over you. There is a word for people like that. Cheers.

Well, no, it doesn't sound like that, because as you may have noticed, I've been well aware that during the 70's people discovered that they can just refuse to be drafted and then win the legal responses against them.

Which brings me back to my original point: didn't we already successfully argue in court that we shouldn't have a draft?

It should come as a surprise to nobody that I'm not going to read links to reddit.

It's a subreddit someone made to spread lies about me years ago. It's pretty pathetic.

Ok. I don't really know how reddit works but did anybody notice or care?

Not really, except for this user

Well, what a good use of his time that was.

Exactly

"I thought we had this argument already?"

Who is "we"? Schizophrenic by any chance? You are a legend only in your own mind, fyi.

It's called the Draft, and given what losers many of today's youths are, it will likely be the only option, once the Democrats gets us mired into more regional wars. Or perhaps when Biden instigates WWIII.

All sorts of things we are "forced" to do, and no one is more for forcing people to do things against their will like a liberal/progressive/Democrat is, so save your fake outrage and posturing for someone who can be fooled by it . . .

"Are you actually trying to tell me that you are completely unaware that a discussion of the ethics of the draft has never taken place with us as a country???"

Why do liberals ever open their pieholes? As with everything else, basic observational skills remain overshadowed by the imaginary world you live in. THIS is why liberals require Censorship and Safe Spaces™, because you cannot handle reality.

There were protests, some violent, lots and lots of "discussions" and debates, obvious effects on who was elected, and when all was said and done and the dust settled, males STILL must register with the Selective Service. The ONLY reason to register with Selective Service is for use for a future Draft.

Though, why anyone needs to register at all is astonishing, given how we are all in "The System" anyway. I suppose they need to remind everyone that the end of your "discussion" resulted in no change at all.

Why do liberals ever open their pieholes?

The individual does not have a choice if they are a citizen. That is not how it works. When it 8s tome for war, and uncle Sam needs you, best of luck.

I have one last word for you that I bet just reading it makes you pee your pants: "conscription"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

Not fixed. Still meaningless.

Was that comment meant for me or antithesis? Because I wasn't talking about the draft

You understood that word salad?

Barely

That one was not for you. Let me fix.

All fixed Darhling, thanks for making me aware. Cheers!

I live to serve

M i r a c l e

Have one from me as well

I just jumped in here because you like attacking Christians each time you get the opportunity or when you lost at an argument. I love you OM and would put my life on the line to save yours. But that does not mean I am not going to judge your actions and criticize them with my best given talent. Specially when being oppressed. Oh, yes, Christians are the largest oppresed group in the planet, starting by people like you. Cheers! You may delete your anti-Christian post.

You can believe whatever you want OM. I already served the military to protect that freedom for you... and also put my life on the line for you. It has already been done, i have petmanent wounds to prove it.

You are stereotyping Cristians in a demeaning mannor with that salty response.

Cheers!

"I already served the military to protect that freedom for you... and also put my life on the line for you. It has already been done, i have petmanent wounds to prove it."

So you meant it in a broad sense

"You are stereotyping Cristians in a demeaning mannor with that salty response"

That's not oppression

Nope... that's bigotry...

Broadsense or not you got nothing.

Well, go on stereoty black people if you dare. Lets see if they agree with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKDmxmOoSWE

The harm that you, and those like you, cause, is nothing short of tragic.

Is that a link that explains what Christian love actually looks like?

Just like you think people should be forced to say words dictated by the lgbtq team.

"You call me evil but you're the one who thinks a rape victim should be forced to stay pregnant against her will"

I'm sorry, but I just cannot continue to have a conversation with someone who is as transphobic as you are.

Why do you hate them so much?!?!

1. I support the transgender community. You don't. You're a liar. I thought your magic sky rapist didn't like liars

2. I was referring to rape victims, whom you think should be forced to stay pregnant against their will. That's disgusting. You view women as incubators, not human beings.

^^

Oh Octavia_Melody, that mouth of yours! You know that language violates Imgflip terms! How dare you! Last resort when getting destroyed in an argument uh?

But he won't get the comment deleted or put on a timer, he's Teflon.

He deletes the comments himself. Once he deleted over 40k of his comments enough to get the attention of Imgflip staff.

Being transgender isn't a mental illness though

It is

Actual psychiatrists say otherwise

Doctors will say wayhever you want when you are paying them money. Cheers!

"I totally did it but the evidence is invisible"

Typical conservative

"Not surprised one bit, I picked up on the pedophilia earlier on about how far he goes to defend them"

Then show me where I defended them even once.

Once.

I did several time, you just keep deleting your own posts. whatever, you are not worth my time.

Not surprised one bit, I picked up on the pedophilia earlier on about how far he goes to defend them. Thanks for the insight.

No you didn't, and you know it, because I never have

Pretty convenient way to write off anything you don't like them saying

Yup pretty convenient. Also definitions are being changed. Just get everyone as confused as possible so they are easy to manipulate.

All countries have the option to mobilize their citizens in time of war. Don’t like it move on, find somewhere else.

Liberals like being the sheep they are, and vote to make sure that someone ELSE has to do the heavy lifting.

Yup they are first ones in line to reap the benefits others provide through their heavy lifting

"If being compared to a sheep is bad, why does Jesus compare his followers to sheep?"

I am not surprised that you are confused by one of the most important factors in communication- context.

I would explain to you the difference between the two uses of the analogy of sheep, but we both know what a waste of time that is. Honestly- you may as well be a bot.

So you’re saying Biden is equal to Jesus?

🤣 ya real corrupt, real stupid, real useless. Jesus is real too. You may not believe he was the messiah but he was real and existed.

*Correction*

An imgflip Sheeple Bot™

We did but the winning factor was not one of morality or lack of unconstitutional authority but rather one of practicality. It was long argued by those who supported the draft that without it, the US would not be able to maintain it’s military personnel if we got into another war. Except we’ve had at least five major wars since ending it so that argument is moot. The selective service is only required as a precaution should our military numbers fall. Which if we keep screwing over our veterans, yeah, that could still happen. Even without another major war.

If the US can't maintain its military personnel on a volunteer basis then something bad has already happened to our moral authority right there!

"something bad has already happened to our moral authority right there!"

This "something bad" is called "The Democrat Party".

Because you clearly haven't been paying attention, this hasn't happened yet. Not by a long shot.

"Because you clearly haven't been paying attention, this hasn't happened yet. Not by a long shot."

Current enrollment in America's military is distressingly low- they are significantly behind on recruiting. Their answer is not to fix the reasons this is happening, but rather to spend more money on advertising.

No irony quite as delicious as a liberal projecting onto someone else that they are not paying attention. If you were paying attention, you would not still be a liberal.

And yet our military capability is greater than the next 14 biggest powers in the world combined, 13 OF WHOM ARE OUR ALLIES ANYWAY!!!!

So CLEARLY it's very much premature to be distressing like a drama queen. We had so many volunteers, we could stand to have less AND still be the world's strongest military - so what's the point in involuntary conscription?

Exactly!

....eh?

Oh! I’ll elaborate. Screwing over our veterans IS that something that has already happened to our moral authority. I thought you were agreeing with me.

I don't think you're listening to what I'm actually saying, only what you can project onto your own preferred issues

Then elaborate.

The United States currently has the volunteer numbers to fulfil its capabilities 12 times over. No, stop, I know you think you're being clever by interjecting about veterans at this point - that doesn't change the fact that on a purely voluntary basis, we comfortably have many orders of magnitude more personnel than is needed to fulfil our missions around the world.

Your hypothesis is that we will need the draft if we get into a war that we could not staff. But if we have lost the ability to staff our missions with volunteers, then guess what? Something must have happened to make people just stop wanting to fight these wars.

Which means that these wars don't have the support of voters.

And in a democracy, that means we shouldn't be in the them.

And therefore we shouldn't even be using the draft.

Which means we shouldn't even have a register for it even in theory.

I can't make it any more clear than that! It's really you choosing not to listen at this point.

No, you make sense. I at least agree it would be more preferable to have people who want to serve than people who do not. And I agree that the draft is archaic.

I am not stating my opinions. I’m just explaining the whys. It doesn’t mean I agree with them. A mistake too many people make in discussions. Especially here.

This is not explaining the whys to what I wrote! This is trying to steer the conversation to an issue that You think you be So Much More Important.

And arguably, it might be, depending on perspective. But it's still not explaining the whys, it's a transparent attempt to ignore what I'm actually talking about.

imgflip.com/i/6wkdgg?nerp=1665611823#com21583439

Ignoring, of course, my initial reply to you.

I really don’t see the point in your objection as I am not arguing against your opinion nor your point.

It just seems you’re being overly-argumentative and defensive.

Understandable given what you normally put up with.

They've said that on account of being out of shape and flunking out of school, many seeking to join aren't making the cut lately, and recruitment is running dangerously low, less than needed.

Not a lot of kiddos want to serve under ice cream Joe either.

Perfect.

"Perhaps if you did not see words as pointless you could’ve made this argument hours ago and saved you the trouble."

Um- just your words, and specifically in that instance. It's OK, though- some people just like to hear themselves talk- I get that.

It's a lot bit disingenuous to remake a point that is pointless, and then cry about it when someone points this out.

"You want to be careful of that."

You take yourself way more seriously than I do . . . but it is possible that I agree with some of what you said, while disagreeing with the rest.

Think outside of the box . . .

"Or did you just like trolling?"

p.s. Given that your comments appear beneath my post, by definition I believe that you are the Troll . . . ;)

"To troll is to merely reply? Interesting."

Perhaps it has more to do with HOW you reply? You are not very introspective, but then you could not be a liberal without that trait.

"Then that would mean we’re all trolls by your logic."

I would classify all liberals as life's trolls. Liberals are why we can't have nice things, and why we have to have stoopid warning labels telling us to not take a shower with a blow-dryer.

Considering you said,

“Given that your comments appear beneath my post, by definition I believe that you are the Troll . . . ;)”

The only reason my comments appear beneath yours is due to me replying to you. And since you believe the positioning of such comments as some definition of trolling, rather some examination of context or intent of my comment, then I’m hardly in need of such introspection.

You, on the other hand; who laces their comments with ad homenim and thinks anyone who disagrees or challenged your viewpoint as a liberal (an ironically liberal use of the term) while deliberately deflecting to insert your own generalizations of liberals - might want to try being a bit more introspective as well.