Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Visit these great anti-Madonna sites:

Madonna Blows Chunks: An Anti-Madonna Blog / Site (NEW!)

Madonna Blows Chunks: An Anti-Madonna Site (site closed as of May 2017)

madonnasuxx's Anti Madonna Site (Internet Archive)

Help us keep ads off our board!



Add us to your bookmarks!
(works in FireFox and Internet Explorer)
Please read the Discussion Board Rules before joining the board!
New Madonna haters: Come introduce yourself!
Board Help & Updates

Stop Forum Spam

  Full List of Emoticons
Avatars
Thread Indexes:

One Stop Index Thread | Persons | Subjects A - L | Subjects M - Z | Aisha's Lawsuit

Life Universe Everything Forum Index

Barf-inducing Madonna links or news -


Flea on Twitter: @fleadip / Link to Flea's Twitter Page | Follow admin Melissa on Twitter @melissatreglia


BREAKING & IMPORTANT MADONNA-RELATED NEWS:

See the "Shout Box" Section at the bottom of the discussion board's main page for the latest anti- Madonna news and links

Welcome to The Anti-Madonna Discussion Board. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Amendments, Laws, Bills, Taxes
Topic Started: Jul 22 2005, 02:25 PM (513 Views)
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

From Armytimes.com:
Quote:
 
Uncle Sam wants you – even if you’re 42 years old

By Rick Maze
Times staff writer


The Defense Department quietly asked Congress on Monday to raise the maximum age for military recruits to 42 for all branches of the service.
Under current law, the maximum age to enlist in the active components is 35, while people up to age 39 may enlist in the reserves. By practice, the accepted age for recruits is 27 for the Air Force, 28 for the Marine Corps and 34 for the Navy and Army, although the Army Reserve and Navy Reserve sometimes take people up to age 39 in some specialties.

The Pentagon’s request to raise the maximum recruit age to 42 is part of what defense officials are calling a package of “urgent wartime support initiatives” sent to Congress Monday night prior to a Tuesday hearing of the House Armed Services military personnel subcommittee.

At that hearing, David S.C. Chu, under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness, said he felt the military’s recent problems with recruiting were improving, but that additional incentives would help.

Chu mentioned the age change in passing during the hearing but gave no other details, such as whether any of the services were seriously considering recruiting 42-year-olds.

Most of the initiatives in the package were previously requested by the Bush administration as part of the 2006 defense budget, which is pending before Congress. They include raising the maximum re-enlistment bonus to $90,000; maximum hardship duty pay to $750 a month; special pay and incentive bonuses for nuclear qualified officers to $30,000; assignment incentive pay to $3,000; and increasing accession and affiliation bonuses for reservists.

The request, not yet approved by the White House, also asks lawmakers to revise some benefits proposals already before Congress.

For example, the Bush administration originally asked Congress to increase enlistment bonuses to $30,000, but the Pentagon now wants bonuses of up to $40,000.

The administration also asked for an Army-only test of a $1,000 referral bonus that would be paid to current soldiers if they get someone to enter the Army and make it through basic and advanced training. Now, the Pentagon wants that payment to be $2,500.

The request also includes a new Army initiative that officials are calling the Army Home Ownership program. It would set aside money for new recruits that could be used to buy a home at the end of an enlistment, an idea that Army officials believe will help convince parents and other “adult influencers” of service-age youths about the benefits of joining the military.

Lawmakers are sympathetic to the need to do more. Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., said he is willing to look at new pay-and-benefits initiatives, although he personally believes that what the Pentagon needs is an increase in personnel to cut the workload on active and reserve service member.

Rep. Vic Snyder of Arkansas, the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, also vowed to help.

“Recruitment is a challenge right now,” Snyder said. “Both the military and Congress are working on solutions, but I expect these challenges will be with us for some time. Military service is honorable and can be a real growing opportunity for a young man or woman.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars


Blame the Media for Military Recruiting Crisis - story dated May 27, 2005
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

9/21/05 I'm in the process of trying to find such a monumental event being covered by the mainstream media, and so far, I'm finding nothing. (I put "anti hate bill" into CNN.com's search engine, and the most recent listing was for the year 2000. And I got absolutely NO hits on Time's website. How bizarre.)
Granted, I'd be glad to have the Jehovah's Witnesses finally leave me alone, but this act would make it a crime to criticise such federally-protected groups such as homosexuals, etc. It automatically makes the Christian Bible into "hate literature" and preaching from it into "hate speech". I don't throw Bible quotes at anyone, but this has some very scary implications for freedom of speech, regardless of political orientation.
EDIT: This looks like msm-type sources below -
Reuters coverage
ABC News
These articles make it sound pretty innocuous. Why, then, am I having difficulty finding it on ordinary news sites?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

Quote:
 
It automatically makes the Christian Bible into "hate literature" and preaching from it into "hate speech". I don't throw Bible quotes at anyone, but this has some very scary implications for freedom of speech, regardless of political orientation.
I agree with you.

I had heard of something silmilar in Canada about a year ago. The Canadian government was going to pass legislation making even criticism of homosexuality (even quotes from the Bible) as being synonymous as being "hate speech," and even within context of a Sunday church sermon (if I recall correctly).

I don't remember if that bill (or whatever it was) was ever passed in Canada or not.

It seems to me that we're getting to a point where it's considered not okay to criticize any group of people, unless it's
(a) white people (especially white males) and
(b.) people with Judeo-Christian beliefs/values (which tend to be conservative).

I know you feel otherwise, but I would add
(c.) political / economic conservatives

Many Democrats - the far, far left ones - will say they're very "tolerant," but they're not tolerant of people who have conservative values.

One thing I've noticed? They champion themselves as being for equality for black people, but you'll notice they do not like and will not support black people who are conservatives / Republicans, such as Condi Rice (who works in Bush's administration). There was some Democratic DJ who was referring to Condi Rice as "Aunt Jemimah" (spelling?) and Colin Powel as "Uncle Tom."

As Iron Shadow and I have noticed, leftists / liberals will say how feminist they are, but if being feminist conflicts with some other group they champion, they will not speak up... they are very pro-Islam, but you rarely hear them speak out against Islamic nations where Muslim women are treated inhumanely.

Anyway, it's a very creepy trend when Christians are being targeted by these proposed laws to muzzle their rights to free speech.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

Related:
'Hate Crime' Laws: An Assault on Freedom

Excerpts-
  • .... We deplore any act of violence against innocent victims (including homosexuals), but we strongly oppose as unjust and dangerous the entire concept of "hate crimes" legislation.

    .... Homosexual activists often exaggerate the incidence of "hate crimes," which make up less than 1 percent of all crimes. Over the past several years, even with more law enforcement agencies reporting, the number of "hate crimes" based on "sexual orientation" has dropped.

    In 2003, Americans were victimized by approximately 11 million "non-hate" crimes such as muggings, beatings, murders and property crime, such as burglaries, car theft and vandalism. Nearly 1.4 million of the crimes were classified as "violent crimes."

    By contrast, there were 7,489 "hate crime" incidents, of which 1,239 were attributed to "sexual orientation" bias. That's a drop of five from the 2002 total of 1,244, and down 154 from 1,393 in 2001.3

    Meanwhile, homosexual activist groups and law enforcement agencies tracking "gay-on-gay" domestic violence reported 6,523 cases in 2003, up 13 percent from 5,718 in 2002.4 People involved in homosexual behavior are astronomically more likely to be assaulted by another homosexual than to become the victim of a "hate crime."

    Liberal activists increasingly invoke such phrases as "hostile speech" and a "climate of violence" to describe pro-family opinion on homosexual issues. The net effect is to reclassify legitimate opinion and free speech as "hate speech" that can be censored.

    Here's Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in a press release blaming conservative Christians for what Foreman claims is a "spike" in "hate crimes" against homosexuals in late 2003 and early 2004:
    [Snip his comments]

    Meanwhile, "hate crime" laws are being used to silence people who publicly oppose homosexuality.

    For example:

    * In Philadelphia, 11 Christians were arrested and jailed overnight in 2004 for singing and preaching in a public park at a homosexual street festival. Five of them were bound over and charged with five felonies and three misdemeanors, totaling a possible 47 years in jail. These charges, based on Pennsylvania's "hate crimes" law, hung over them for months until a judge finally dismissed them.7
    * In Canada, a newspaper publisher and a man who placed a newspaper ad faced jail and were fined $4,500 each, merely for running an ad containing references to several Bible verses regarding homosexuality.8
    * A pastor in New York saw his billboard with a Bible verse on it taken down under pressure from city officials, who cited "hate crime" rhetoric.9
    * The San Francisco Board of Supervisors officially approved a resolution urging local media to decline to run advertisements by pro-family groups that offered hope for change to homosexuals. A liberal court then winked at this egregious violation of the First Amendment.10

    As the definition of "hate crimes" expands, practitioners of traditional religion and those who support policies favoring the traditional family increasingly will face legal sanctions.

    In Holland, it is now "illegal for any employer and for any provider of goods or services, to distinguish between married and unmarried couples."11

    Will recognition of marriage someday be a "hate crime" in America? Yes, if "hate crime" laws continue to be enacted by well-meaning but misinformed legislators.

    The proper response to "hate crimes" is to enforce the law impartially and firmly. Every citizen deserves equal protection under the law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 1 Not Fooled
Member Avatar
Licensed & Board-certified!

That's a good summary of the situation. I hadn't seen that particular one yet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maddyhater
Member Avatar
Duranie Madonna Hater
[ *  *  * ]
:bad:

Amendment to ban flag burning fails by one vote

now my husband is calling ME a conservative because of my view on this issue (calling Flea....)


No, I don't think the American flag should be allowed to be burned, free speech or not. There are other ways to raise your voice if you are disappointed about something in this country, the flag should be sacred and protected. Many men and women have died for this country, and the flag should be something we don't allow to be destroyed (unless it's an old flag, and there are rules about that).


Don't even get me started about our discussion this morning about immigration, apparently I'm conservative leaning about that too...



MH
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

On a related note . . .

Why Liberals Are Crushing Dissent
- by Kevin McCullough

Following is from a fairly long (2 page) but very interesting online article; see link above:
  • .... that's why this week in one of the boldest moves yet by a sitting liberal, Democrat Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez proclaimed, "The real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system."

    .... The liberals in the [Calif.] state assembly knew that the average Californian would never support these radical measures, but they also knew that they will not be up for re-election this year and they are counting on Californians having very short term memories.

    But one of the bills goes a step further.

    Its actual purpose is to cripple any state resources such as fire department or police protection for any religious institution (i.e. a Bible based church) that would in any way demonstrate negative "doctrine" or "propaganda".

    So if an arsonist (who also just happened to be a radical activist) decided to burn down a church that was in their view teaching the faithful interpretation of scripture as it relates to sexual practice - then the local fire company could be barred from assisting in the recovery and protection of said facility.
Earlier in the piece:
  • Nunez's [who is a liberal] solution to the people he disagrees with is to outlaw their ability to disagree with him.

    And Nunez's viewpoint is one that pervades liberals in his party and in the nation. That is why Nunez and his fellow democrats in the California State Assembly voted in unison to pass four bills that are all designed to punish people who disagree with them.

    To incarcerate someone for daring to criticize a different point of view - over a purely behavioral issue.

    The bills in question have passed both houses and await Governor Schwarzenegger's signature or veto. The bills were unanimously embraced by the Democrats and universally denounced by the Republicans.

    These four bills would require that in every classroom from kindergarten through high school that perverse sexual activity be praised and highlighted in a positive light.

    .... These four bills are also dangerous in what they outlaw. No single teacher - not even in science classes - would be allowed to talk about the negative health impact of homosexual behavior.

    ... No mention of moral aspects of sexual behavior would be permitted unless immoral activity were praised and in fact referred to as moral.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

I think I read somewhere that this year the Army decided to lower the age for sign-up; or was it education level?

Anyway... it's the Democrats who want to reinstate the draft:
Rep. Rangel [DEMOCRAT] will seek to reinstate draft.
Post #3:
  • BabbaZee 11/19/2006 02:39PM PST
    From the thread below

    #252 BabbaZee 11/19/2006 01:56PM PST
    #248 Peter Verkooijen 11/19/2006

    It's an extremely cynical move to recreate Vietnam conditions and get the college protester population energized.
    DING DING DING DING

    We have a winner.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mihoshi Marie
Member Avatar
to whom it may concern
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Wow, I need to get myself sorted out so that I can join the Air Force - I'll be 25 in March. :unsure:

That being said, it figures that the Democrats would want to bring the draft back. That would also keep us from engaging in other conflicts (if such conflicts were necessary or unavoidable).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

What kind of evil monkey wants to tax candy?!
(Well, it turns out to be a Democrat.)

So long sucker: Lick the candy tax
- in New Hampshire
  • Tuesday, Mar. 13, 2007

    AMONG THE bills introduced this legislative session to "raise revenue" for the state (increase taxes) is House Bill 820, titled "An act establishing a tax on candy."

    ... The candy tax rate would be a whopping 50 cents per pound.

    No, there are no exemptions for school children or non-profits.

    To raise money by selling chocolate bars, schools, scouting organizations and other groups would have to be licensed by the state.

    If they order their chocolate unstamped from an out-of-state vendor, they'd have to buy the tax stamps and stamp each piece.

    This plan is only one of several tax-hiking bills sponsored or co-sponsored by Rep. Catherine Mulholland, D (Democrat)-Grafton.

    In addition to candy, Rep. Mulholland also wants to tax or further tax
    beer,
    cigars,
    snuff,
    chewing tobacco,
    all bottled beverages,
    entertainment admission charges,
    commercial and industrial property,
    vacation homes,
    luxury cars worth more than $30,000,
    estates worth more than $3 million,
    business payrolls higher than $10,000 a week, gambling winnings and
    "any item costing $10,000 or more."

    It is not surprising that a Democratic legislator would seek to tax so many of life's pleasures and economic stimulants. This is the logical extension of the reasoning that produced last year's (and this year's) cigarette tax hike.

    The question is whether the leadership of her party will doom their newfound majority by supporting these punitive measures to squeeze revenue out of people who engage in behaviors of which some Democrats disapprove.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flea dip
Member Avatar
Rock Star From Mars

Matthew Shepard, who was mentioned in efforts to get this legislation to pass, was not murdered for being a homosexual.

Homosexuals were already protected under the law, so this headline makes me want to puke - or laugh.

Senate passes measure that would protect gays
  • Obama is expected to sign legislation on hate crimes
    By Ben Pershing
    Friday, October 23, 2009

    The Senate cleared a historic hate crimes bill Thursday for President Obama's signature, approving new federal penalties for attacks on gay men and lesbians.
Hate Crimes Bunk
  • By David N. Bass on 10.23.09 @ 12:23PM

    The U.S. Senate yesterday passed a bill, 68 to 29, that includes sexual orientation as a protected class in federal hate crimes laws. Most Republicans voted against it. The House approved the legislation prior, and it now goes to President Obama for his signature.

    Here's the catch: the Democratic leadership attached the measure to a $680 billion defense appropriation bill, which includes additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, essentially, Reid and his cohorts dared conservative lawmakers to vote against the defense funding by including the hate-crimes bunk.

    Granted, such tactics are nothing new. Republicans used them, too, when they held the reins of power. It shouldn't matter.

    Any bill, but particularly one dealing with constitutional implications as this one does, should be debated and voted on independent of other legislation, particularly major appropriations.

    To combine two separate issues is a time-tested political ploy practiced by both sides - but it's no less despicable.

    That should be the headline in MSM papers this morning, or at least a significant part of the story. A pipe dream, I know.

    As a side note, watch for this hate-crimes legislation to be one of the few bones that Obama throws to the homosexual activist crowd in the near term. He's sat on rescinding the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

    Ditto on repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which has enjoyed bi-partisan support for years and was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996.

    Signing the hate crimes bill will be a good way for Obama to shore up his extreme leftist base on this issue without costing too much political capital or diverting his attention from remaking the U.S. economy.
Senate passes hate-crimes amendment

Congress extends hate crime protections to gays
  • Physical attacks on people based on their sexual orientation will join the list of federal hate crimes in a major expansion of the civil rights-era law Congress approved Thursday and sent to President Barack Obama.

    A priority of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., that had been on the congressional agenda for a decade, the measure expands current law to include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. The measure is named for Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student murdered 11 years ago.

    To assure its passage after years of frustrated efforts, Democratic supporters attached the measure to a must-pass $680 billion defense policy bill the Senate approved 68-29. The House passed the defense bill earlier this month.

    Many Republicans, normally staunch supporters of defense bills, voted against the bill because of the hate crimes provision. All the no votes were Republicans except for Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who supported the hate crimes provision but opposes what he says is the open-ended military commitment in Afghanistan.

    "The inclusion of the controversial language of the hate crimes legislation, which is unrelated to our national defense, is deeply troubling," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

    Hate crimes law enacted after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1968 centered on crimes based on race, color, religion or national origin.

    The expansion has long been sought by civil rights and gay rights groups. Conservatives have opposed it, arguing that it creates a special class of victims. They also have been concerned that it could silence clergymen or others opposed to homosexuality on religious or philosophical grounds.

    Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group, hailed the bill as "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence."

    Some 45 states have hate crimes statutes, and the bill would not change current practices where hate crimes are generally investigated and prosecuted by state and local officials.

    But it does broaden the narrow range of actions — such as attending school or voting — that can trigger federal involvement and allows the federal government to step in if the Justice Department certifies that a state is unwilling or unable to follow through on an alleged hate crime.

    The measure also provides federal grants to help state and local governments prosecute hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.

    ....The bill also creates a federal crime to penalize attacks against U.S. service members on account of their service.

    Attorney General Eric Holder said nearly 80,000 hate crime incidents have been reported to the FBI since he first testified before Congress in support of a hate crimes bill 11 years ago. "It has been one of my highest personal priorities to ensure that this legislation finally becomes law," he said.

    The FBI says more than half of reported hate crimes are motivated by racial bias. Next most frequent are crimes based on religious bias, at around 18 percent, and sexual orientation, at 16 percent.

    At the urging of Republicans the bill was changed to strengthen free speech protections to assure that a religious leader or any other person cannot be prosecuted on the basis of his or her speech, beliefs or association.

    "Nothing in this legislation diminishes an American's freedom of religion, freedom of speech or press or the freedom to assemble," said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. "Let me be clear. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act targets acts, not speech."

    That didn't convince Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who said the bill was a "dangerous step" toward thought crimes. He asked whether the bill would "serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views."

    Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the measure was "part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality."

    The defense bill is H.R. 2647.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Global Outlook · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Disclaimer: The contents of the posts contained herein are the sole property of their respective users and do not necessarily reflect the forum's views as a whole.
All content Copyright © 2005-2018 The Anti-Madonna Discussion Board, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.