I can remember a fellow student who was one of my favorite liberals. Jewish, white, ou of state, smart, and fiery. She would protest consrvatives, hand out condoms and aids pamplets, and all the correct liberal causes. We were in a social/political thought class on the early moderns(Machiavelli-federalist papers), and she was going all in for Clinton at a dinner party our professor had for us. He asked her what she wanted him to do.

Build a bridge to the 21st century.

And he asked her where would that bridge go, and she had no answer.

That's where liberals fall down for ordinary people. They preach "correct" sentiment without the ability to explain what they want to accomplish. They can paint a picture of things that are obvious injustice, but can't make a case for why. You can't say, make the rich pay their fair share, and not be able to explain for what. Or make the case for gay rights, poker rights, defendant rights, and not tie it to their rights.

It's easy to get kids in midstream just by showing injustice. But, it's incomplete until you can teach them to communicate a picture of the justice at the destination.

ITT, one person sloganeering is an indictment of all liberals.

Hint:

It's true that most young people don't have strong political leanings either way. To them the world seems pretty constant and they are much more worried about finding their place in it than trying to change anything. Only when they get older to they realize politicians' decisions can and will effect them in a big way. Of course this equation can change drastically when they're getting drafted to fight in a war they don't care about.

The draft boggles my mind. No ****ing way would I have gone to Vietnam.

I can confirm that the idea that people being potentially sent to a war zone will make them more politically aware doesn't really seem to happen in real life.

I have a feeling it's a little different when you signed up for it vs. involuntarily yanked into it. Have you not seen Hair?

I have little doubt that a draft to go to war with Iran would create a bunch of 18-20-soemthing political activists overnight.

Yeah, that's probably true. But there is just absolutely no chance in hell of a draft happening, so I can't really even speculate on what effects it would have.

Also, I have not seen Hair. I don't get to as many musicals as I'd like.

Right well my point was that young people probably aren't going to be that politically active unless there's a draft. So we're saying basically the same thing.

Although what was the average OWSer age?

You could be a conscientious objector. Unless you're from Arkansas.

One of my father's patients tried to claim CO status and they told him "We don't have conscientious objectors in Arkansas." Now he's a paraplegic.

Relevant to this discussion:

I once read this great book, and in the introduction, the author shares the story of how he became interested in the law in his teens/early twenties when he attempted to register as a conscientious objector during Vietnam. He was not allowed to since his objections were not based on any religious conviction as was required for CO status. He was a pacifist for nonreligious moral reasons, and was told that that was not good enough. He was then drafted and refused to report, at which point he was arrested and (if I recall correctly) sentenced to several years in prison, though I believe he got it overturned at some point.

Anyway, the point is that government making a big influence on his life at age 19 or so was what prompted him to devote his life to the law. This lends credence to the theory that people don't generally care about politics until it starts affecting them in some clear way, at which point they care very much.

EDIT: Here's the 6th circuit's opinion denying his appeal.

I'm pretty sure I recall there being talk of a draft after the first Gulf War. I was in college at the time and it was definitely something scaring the crap out of my fellow students.

There's talk about a draft quite often. But there is just no way it will ever happen. The military doesn't want it, neither party wants it, 20yos don't want it, and their parents don't want it.

Pretty sure a guy introduces a bill every couple of years to introduce the draft and if there is a slow news day or if its convenient it gets picked up by the media then gets ignored when it doesnt even get enough support for a vote let alone gets passed through Congress.

A draft in the current paradigm is impossible in America and most western countries. If for no other reason than it makes it harder to go to war.

Rangel introduces a bill every year, with the support of a few Dems, mainly Pete Stark.

I personally think that at least 12 months of compulsory service of some sort wouldnt be a bad thing.

Even Germany ended their draft last year.

Who's paying for it?

Truly is mind bottling....especially for black people given how they were often treated domestically. Muhammed Ali was definitely right on that one.

OTOH, blacks had two generations of veterans as role-models and fathers. The military integrated before the rest of society. And, Johnson had just signed civil rights and voting while breaking the KKK simultaneously.

A lot of northern and southern blacks thought they would be treated better after serving their country in WWII. They had a rude awakening.

It should be hard to institute a draft. It should be hard to go to war.

You know when it will be easy for a draft? When our life and liberty is threatened by an attack and occupation of our homeland. Not running around in sand countries attacking brown people.

?? I'd rather be black postwar than pre. It definitely or better....

But do you change your cologne seasonally?

That's not saying much. For many it was basically the same. Nothing much changed in the South until the 60s.

Mid-Atlantic and Midwest industrial blacks had significant gains. I can see blacks more willing to fight in Vietnam than WWII or Korea, especially for Johnson.

So frothy is gone now although I am sure he will be back (sadly).

Does this pretty much guarantee Romney gets the delegates needed before the convention? What will Newt and Paul do now?

Obviously Romney was overwhelmingly likely to get the nomination anyway, but I am curious if this has any interesting affects or if it just means its general election time for both sides starting now.