~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[removed]
[–]Frank_N_Berry82 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Looks to me like they want men to do the right thing and register for domestic violence workshops. Apparently it's quick to register, easy, and the law. :)
[–]dungone65 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well you know all of us war veterans, we come home and murder the shit out of our wives. At least that's what all my feminist friends told me when I came back from Iraq. Must have learned it at one of those workshops.
[–]Ragnrok69 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Active duty marine here. Did not realize I was letting feminism down. Will beat my wife once she's done with work.
[–]RockFourFour15 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
G'donya, mate. Can't have fellow servicemembers stepping out of line.
[–]Madlibsluver6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Thanks for your service
[–]agentalpha5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Best comment I've read all day.
[–]joewilson-MRA5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I feel so much better knowing it is quick and easy!! ; )
And I'm glad that it's only for men. God forbid we make it law for women after all we know that they never hit men.
[–]Frank_N_Berry64 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Non-American here... What happens if you don't register for the SS (ooh telling and creepy acronym)?
Why do you even have to register? Don't they already know?
[–]scottcockerman89 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's so they know who you are and where you are at. If you don't, you can't vote, receive financial aid for college, get a government job, ect. Women and women who identify as men don't have to.
[–]Frank_N_Berry55 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You can't vote?! Wow. Anyway, I would have thought they'd already have that info on you without needing to register. My spidey senses say that there some law out there that says you must "volunteer" to do it, and this is how they bring in "volunteers", but I'm totally making that up.
[–]ARedthorn71 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You hit the nail on the head- except volunteering is mandatory. Registration is a little more than that- it's a database of names, but also contractual agreement to serve (such that if there ever is a draft, and you refuse, it's a crime).
And yes- the vote is contingent on agreement to serve in the event of a draft. The Supreme Court actually called the Selective Service "payment for the right to vote" when they upheld it as legal.
Basically, you lose citizenship if you don't sign up- no vote, no government programs, including grants and funding of any kind (even Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, even though you still have to pay into them or face tax evasion on top of everything else)... Nothing. You lose EVERYTHING.
[–]firex72662 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
"Service guarantees citizenship!"
[–]Stephen198529 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Fight the bugs on klendathu
[–]kragshot19 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Would you like to know more?
[–]LandMineHare3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm doing my part too!
[–]Arakin29 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yet women claim their inability to vote was through pure oppression, when in reality, there has never been universal suffrage in any country. You've had to be a land owner, a soldier, signed up for the draft, aristocracy, etc.
[–]GalenLambert11 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Some countries for sure have universal suffrage. There may never have been universal suffrage in America, but let's not pretend it's the only country.
[–]Arakin2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You gonna back that up with anything? I'm genuinely interested in knowing what Western country had universal suffrage without contingency for any lengthy period of time and wasn't instituted within the last couple decades.
[–]GalenLambert9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You just completely changed the spirit of your question by limiting it to western countries, and changing it from a past to present tense question.
At any rate, New Zealand (1893) seems to fit the bill. So does Finland (1906), Poland (1918), Germany (1919), the Netherlands (1919), and many other western countries.
I haven't looked into all of them, but New Zealand's only restrictions are that you are a citizen or permanent resident, and either live within or have been to New Zealand in the past three years. Convicted criminals in jail, and criminals convicted and sentenced to stay in a mental hospital are the only exceptions.
[–]Arakin-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well it doesn't really matter if you can vote in a country where you have no rights, your vote doesn't matter, your property can be taken away from you at any time etc. etc., so yeah, I'm gonna limit it to the Western countries or really any country that could be considered 1st world.
It looks to me like the countries you've listed were removing voting restrictions around the same time as giving women voting privileges, or simply passing a universal suffrage law, which is great. The point I was making was that in the US, it's worth noting that while we had the women's suffrage movement, we still had, and have, voting requirements on the men in this country, while women were screaming about being oppressed. So it wasn't even really a cry for universal suffrage, just women's suffrage, as the male vote still came, and comes, with a requirement.
[–]GalenLambert6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The idea that the only countries in history with human rights are western is absurd...
That wasn't what you said though. You said:
"There has never been universal suffrage in any country".
That's just wrong. Many countries have, and have had, universal suffrage. You can't say that there has never been universal suffrage in any country and counter with "yeah but there isn't in this country".
If your argument is that all universal suffrage is just from the women's suffrage movements, I would point you to Canada (my country). Canada had women's suffrage by 1940, but didn't have universal suffrage until 1960.
You're making unclear arguments, and the point you claim to have been making is entirely absent from the first post I replied to, but I feel its fair to say that many countries have and have had universal suffrage.
[–]Arakin-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I just discussed Canada with someone else, and I just clarified to 1st world countries in my previous post, so if you could please just have a civil discourse without trying to let this devolve into some ridiculous argument I'd like that.
The point I was trying to make when I said that was that if you have universal suffrage, but they don't count your votes, throw you out into the street, the prime minister goes over his term limits, the government takes your land and throws you into jail with due process, is it really worth saying you have universal suffrage? It's kind of like saying you have universal healthcare in a country that doesn't even have antibiotics. So, yeah, I'm not about WINNING this argument, so just accept what I meant and let's move on.
I don't know what you mean by
all universal suffrage is just from the women's suffrage movements,
My point I was making, at least about the US, was that men never had a free vote when women did not, and still do not. I brought other countries into the mess as evidence that universal suffrage is a recent thing. Citizens having the vote for nothing is a modern thing, and I was relating it to the women's suffrage/Feminist movement in this country, because women were screaming about not having the vote, but were not about to put up anything to get it. The vote was always, and I say always as a generalization, contingent upon something, and it's only in very recent modern times that people were given the vote for nothing. That's the point I was trying to make.
So yeah, you can say that many countries have and have had universal suffrage, but over the course of history the idea of universal suffrage is very new, and I would like to know what country or countries, in the civilized world, had men's suffrage contingent on nothing, that denied women the same right for any real length of time.
[–]GalenLambert3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well judging from your other thread, you just acknowledged that Canada has universal suffrage, and had men's suffrage free of any requirements for a significant period of time prior to women's suffrage.
If by western you meant countries with civil rights you should have clarified that many non-western countries have significant civil rights (Mongolia, Brazil, Belize).
That may have been your point, but that wasn't what I was arguing. I disagree with your post that universal suffrage hasnt ever existed. It has existed. It does exist. Just because it doesn't exist in your particular country does not mean you can say that it has never existed. That was the part with which I had a problem. Women in some areas are able to say that their inability to vote was a product of pure oppression. That may not be the case in your country, but to claim it was the case in "any country" is just clearly wrong.
[–]Arakin-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Are we arguing just to argue here? The Canadian said this to me
I would point you to Canada (my country). Canada had women's suffrage by 1940, but didn't have universal suffrage until 1960.
I don't know the details, but how does him saying that make it seem that men had voting free of requirements for a period of time before women?
I said about 100 times which country type I was referring to and why. If you want to argue semantic details I don't care to. Universal suffrage exists in places now yes, but it is a modern thing. Consider how long we have had societies and consider how long we've had universal suffrage as a percentage of that time. It's very slim.
Women in certain areas can say their inability to vote was pure oppression, but men and ethic groups and racial groups can say that in places as well. Right now, men have more restrictions on their ability to vote than women in the US. It's not about picking out a minor example here or a minor example there, it's about proportion, scale, and which countries we're talking about and for how long.
As I said several times in this thread, I'm bringing this all back to the women's suffrage/Feminist movement in the US, where women wanted the right to vote and wanted it for free, when men do not even have the right to vote for free in this country, and women were acting as though they did. This is my point. The right to vote has "always" been contingent upon something, so to say as a general statement that men have always had the right to vote and women have been oppressed by their lack there of, is disingenuous, and that's the point I was trying to make. It's a fair point if you'll let me make it and stop arguing my old posts that I've already clarified with you. I'm trying hard to be civil here and just have a discussion.
The idea that a civilized country has universal suffrage is new. It is disingenuous to say that men have had the vote without requirement for a long period of time and women have been denied it for simple sexism. The vote has 'always' been contingent upon something when the vote was available, and the idea of giving it to people for free is obviously STILL under contention, as its clear in the US and other countries. I take issue with the stance that people assume men have always have the vote and women have always been denied, when it's more like men who fit the following criteria or were required to do the following things had the 'right' to vote, and women did not have the right, because they were simultaneously not required to take part in the things the men were required to take part in in order to get the vote, and the idea of UNIVERSAL suffrage without requirement is new in the scope of human history and civilized countries.
Right now, men have more restrictions on their ability to vote than women in the US.
This is where we're disagreeing. You're making this an american-centric conversation. I disagree with your use of the words "any country" in your previous post. If you go back and read my first reply you will see that is all I argued. You're making this a different argument. You should have said "The US has never had universal suffrage", not "There has never been universal suffrage in any country". That is the argument.
What you are doing is expanding your argument in order to make yourself correct. You've went from a view of "universal suffrage has never existed in any country" to "Universal suffrage has never existed in a meaningful way in a western country" to "Universal suffrage has never existed in a meaningful way in a first world country with a good human rights record, and if it has it was the result of woman's suffrage" to "Women get a free vote and men do not in this one country I choose to speak about".
I realize that universal suffrage is not a thing in the US. I've never disagreed with that. I've never disagreed that universal suffrage is a fairly new idea. I've never disagreed with anything except your statement that "There has never been universal suffrage in any country". That is it. That statement is wrong. It has been shown to be wrong. Stop expanding the argument and getting angry, and realize that the statement which I disagree with is an incorrect statement.
I have made more recent comments about universal suffrage in other countries and clarified, you're just chosing to ignore them.
[–]GalenLambert2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This is what you asked me to prove. Just because you have widened the argument ridiculously to allow your self to soap box does not mean I need to change what I'm discussing. I am not discussing the U.S., your history, human history, or the selective service program. I am discussing the above point. You can not argue that your comments have continued to reflect this point, you've developed it beyond recognition. You're using logical fallacies in order to soap box your opinions, and trying to convince me that you haven't.
I feel very confident that I have established that there is a Western country which allows all citizens to vote without contingency, and has done so for a significant period of time.
[–]Arakin0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Why are you so set on fighting with this ridiculous argument? I haven't widened it ridiculously. Say you and I were sitting in a country that has Nuclear power for the last ten years, and then I said "There's never been a country with Nuclear power." Would you go "But this country has it!" or would you understand the point I was making?
The point I was making was clarified many times in many of my posts. If you don't want to accept it or discuss it then move on. I'm not interested in having this strange meta argument with you. I've clarified several times, if you chose to ignore it that's up to you.
[–]GalenLambert1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Fine then, please tell me what exactly you meant when you said this:
Because I feel I've more than shown that many countries met those requirements. Everything you've said since have been different arguments.
do you think that was some kind of asshole retort? I was being serious, and I responded to those.
So you admit that your original point was incorrect? Is that what we're getting out of this? Because all your other responses just expand and shift the argument away from the original sentence I responded to.
I'm admitting, as I have already, that I should have rephrased my original point. I've admitted this multiple times, I really don't know how you're not getting this already.
Please explain how you've rephrased that without changing the entire meaning. Because from my point of view, it's been altered beyond recognition
Well I don't care then. I've made too many posts in here anyway. I tried to have a civil discourse with you, but all you care about is being 'right.' So go ahead and be right. If you actually care, it's clear what I mean in context of this discussion over the course of my replies.
No, your point isn't clear. It has developed from the sentence with which I disagreed to and entirely different argument. That is why we couldn't have discourse. Instead of discussing what I was disagreeing with, you chose to get on a soapbox and make new points.
[–]Synaps43 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Dude, find the spot where what you said was wrong and just say "yeah that was wrong" instead of spouting more paragraphs.
That or I can hand you this shovel and you can keep digging.
[–]Zephs2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Canada? How many decades do you need to go back for it to count?
[–]HollowOnTheOutside3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
In Canada women had the right to vote in 1918, non-land owning men had the right to vote in 1920.
That counts, right? Pretty sure almost a hundred years is more than "a couple decades".
But I think you'd need to look up when non-white people were able to vote, too. I'm not big on history.
[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I dunno, educate me on Canadian voting requirements.
[–]Zephs4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Turn 18
Show up to vote
Check the box
Actually, showing up isn't even mandatory. I believe there's a way to mail votes or something if you can't show up.
Surely you have to register to vote...
[–]Zephs1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I voted for the first time in the last election, but I never registered for it. I got a letter saying I was now eligible with instructions where I could show up to cast my vote.
Interesting, well there has to be some kind of method for the government to know who is who and how to count votes. Maybe when you get a license or something they keep track of you, otherwise they wouldn't know how to send you a letter etc.
Kinda cool though.
There's no "extra" barrier, is all I was meaning to point out. If you're an adult citizen, you can vote. Except for the standard restrictions, like no criminals and stuff.
[–]Edgevine2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Actually, I am fairly sure you don't even need to be a citizen for some stuff- my last city election, I just had to prove I was an adult resident(or property owner). You can show pretty much anything with your name and adress on it.
Even if you don't get the letter, you can usually still vote. And in Canada, you're allowed to vote by mail if you're in jail, according to this.
[–]Zephs3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Maybe we should bring freedom to America, for a change? :P
Right. Gotcha. Thanks :)
[–]Madlibsluver-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Ugh.
No matter what a woman did, she was not allowed to vote.
A man had the chance to get it done.
[–]yelirbear25 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
THIS is why I never want to live in the US. That and also that the US government tortures people and thinks it's okay.
[–]cheezehead4lyfe14 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yup, our politics our fucked up backwards. We preach freedom and equality but our laws do not. It's really frustrating.
[–]TheThinMan34-9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
1) the U.S. torturing people is old news. We all knew about it years ago. So people acting surprised by it are just trying to cover up their willing ignorance.
2) everyone tortures people. Don't think any government is special.
3) torture is sometimes the dark deed that is necessary. People need to get over that. The people that we tortured were child molesters and mass murderers (or wanted to be).
4) men fight. We've always fought. We're good at it by nature. We fight for our families, we fight for our countries. Get over it. Fighting kept a lot of shitty things from happening. Like Nazi Germany.
[–]JackBadass7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I didn't realize everyone tortures people. That makes it okay, then.
[–]KAWUrban4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
i torture people, can confirm it is okay.
[–]ICritMyPants1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Hi Trevor.
[–]Madlibsluver1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Some of the people were innocent.
Didn't get due process.
It's never okay.
[–]Cardplay3r1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's even worse than that, in one case they tortured a handicapped person they knew was innocent to get information from his family, which they suspected of terrorism. You can't argue with people like that though
Ridiculous.
[–]AustNerevar13 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Meaning that men don't actually have rights unless they sign up for selective service. Women, on the other hand will always have their rights.
[–]caveman133718 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
They aren't rights if you have to earn them. For men, voting is a privilege...
[–]PatriarchyDrone15 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So that's this "male privilege" I've heard so much about.
[–]Qapiojg2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Now the name of the thread makes sense!
[–]Frank_N_Berry10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Sincere question... Why doesn't anyone care? Outside of this subreddit is objection to this a "thing"?
[–]Okymyo50 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Whenever there's an argument about drafts, the same thing is always brought up: "but there'll never be a draft". This essentially shuts down the discussion rather than assessing its value. This is especially brought up when it's argued that women should also have to sign up (if the draft isn't abolished in its entirety).
Of course, "it'll never happen, stop whining" is the recurrent counter-argument. Which is why I always like to bring up my extreme hypothetical situation which, according to these people, would have to be okay...
If men are to be drafted and sent off to die in wars, women are to selectively breed in order to make up for the drop in [male] population. They'd be impregnated against their own will. "Hey, it'll never happen, so what's the problem."
It's a pretty shitty scenario nobody would defend, but it's enough to raise questions: why is forcing men to register to die if there's a war apparently okay, but forcing women to have children, in the same situation, a problem? Dying isn't as bad as being a mother? Bodily autonomy is a right for women, but not for men?
The usual fallacies ensue... Special pleading, saying it's an exception; ad hominem, saying I just hate women for suggesting that they should have to sign up for selective services because I'm sentencing them to death in case of a draft (oh the irony); slippery slope and strawmanning with ridiculous arguments, among other things.
[–]phengineer4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I like you... this is clever. I might borrow that IRL
[–]Okymyo2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Whenever someone is making a argument that seems poor, your objective isn't to counter-argument their poor arguments (because that'll only be met by other poor arguments): your objective is to show them their argument is wrong, and why it's wrong.
Usually this should be done by questioning the nature of their argument, or questioning the points you see it fails at. In the case of drafts, question why is bodily autonomy a right that belongs solely to women, and question why should men be sentenced to die in wars. If the "men are stronger/more fit to be soldiers/whatever" argument is brought up, then you change your argument: why don't women have to contribute in other ways. The way I mentioned is inhumane, so bringing up "why is it inhumane but sentencing someone to die in a war isn't" generally leaves no logical option other than to question their argument.
You don't need someone to go "oh my god you're right", you just want them to question themselves, and improve. And if they don't question themselves, or stand by their argument, at least you'll know there's nothing else you can do for a poor mind that is incapable of questioning itself.
PS: You should focusing on showing someone why they're wrong rather than shoving your own argument down their throat because that never accomplishes anything. Both people need to have an open dialogue, and if you go into it with the mindset of "my argument is right, I need to enlighten the other person", you'll accomplish nothing. Instead, focus on bringing up the weaknesses of the arguments presented.
[–]jcea_1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
your objective is to show them their argument is wrong, and why it's wrong.
You goal should actually be to show that their argument is ludicrously laughable and them even trying to put it forth makes them a laughing stock.
I am not arguing with the method just saying that it's not enough to prove them wrong, even if someone thinks they are wrong but believes their position is defensible they will merely double down. Now if they think professing that opinion might make them look like an idiot they might actually change. Given of course you let them back away and pretend they really were never that stupid.
[–]Okymyo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If someone is serious about what they're defending, laughing at their argument is only going to get you farther away from your objective. It's mocking them, making them unlikely to listen to you because they'll treat you're attacking them for being stupid, and not their argument.
Because lets be honest, if I said your argument is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, it's pretty much implied that I'm calling you dumb.
Yes and that would not be a good way too convince them.
I didn't say laugh at their argument I said make it apparent it's ludicrously laughable, just laughing does not do that. If you want to see it done properly I suggest watching the daily show interviews. Strangely enough often the best way to do it is to give them full reign and ask questions in a sincere manner. Stupidity often loves an audience.
You need to make it so everyone one including themselves sees how stupid the argument is so they loose support. This of course is not easy to do but it is the only way I know of to get someone who is ideologically entrenched to change their position.
[–]LordFishFinger1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I guess a good counter-argument to that would be that, as far as I know, populations explode after the war anyway, so there's really no need to force anyone to breed. On the contrary, soldiers pretty much have to be mobilised before the war if the country wants to win it.
Your opponent could say "yes, these are both equally fair or unfair, but only one of them is necessary".
[–]Stephen1985-5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Its a terrible argument lol, if there will never be a draft then why do you need selective service.
[–]AustNerevar8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Because "there will never be a draft" is a bullshit lie that shouldn't be believed?
[–]Stephen1985-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Its also a strong reason to get rid of SS lol, that why its a silly argument to make for SS when it works just as well against it.
[–]AustNerevar6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I don't think you understand what is going on here. We are arguing against it.
[–]Stephen19853 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I think people are misunderstanding what im trying to say.
im agreeing with the comment i replied to and pointing out the fact that when people say that "ss doesnt matter because there wont be a draft" thats a stupid argument because it can work equally well as an argument for or against.
[–]AustNerevar1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You might want to go back, edit, and re-clarify. I think the way your original comment was phrased threw a lot of people off.
[–]Stephen19851 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Your right, it was hastily written. ill just leave it for now and be more careful next time.
[–]neoman44261 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
They're saying the ones that are for or apathetic are making the bad argument, not us
[–]ARedthorn15 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Mostly no one cares because they don't even think twice about it. Hell, many don't even know. My senior year, when I turned 18, my high school signed me up for me, without even telling me.
For those who do know about it, either don't know about the right to vote or don't care... Many fall back on the "so what if it's wrong, it'll never happen to me" defense, and remain blissfully ignorant.
[–]cheezehead4lyfe7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This. People don't expect a draft to ever happen again, and completely comply to throwing away their human rights. If a draft were to happen, though, I would suspect a massive outpour of objections and Canada's population would most likely skyrocket.
[–]PM_ME_UR_PLANTS13 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It bothered the shit out of me when I was nearing 18. No one would hear me talk about it until I came here. Parents, friends, teachers... "Just sign it"
[–]shangrila5002 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Same here with the exception J had no one to talk to and just had to sign it as did the rest of us. The only thing we can do is force a change in the law so future generations don't have to sign up against their will or forfeit all benefits of citizenship.
[–]YodaVinci2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So not so different from conscription? My country practices conscription because we are so few people the military needs all the people it can get, but it feels very unfair, not having a choice.
[–]ARedthorn10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yes and no. Conscription is worse, because it's active. The Selective Service (aka draft) hasn't been activated in decades, so the current US military is 100% voluntary. That said, a couple of senators are pushing for it, because they think it'll make the nation less interested in war.
Last but not least, the Selective Service does allow a couple loose "outs"- namely, you can refuse front-line service as a conscientious objector, but you still have to serve in some capacity... If you object to fighting, they'll train you as a medic- if you object to being on the war front, they'll train you to repair or manufacture war assets (planes, tanks, whatever), if you object to that, they'll have you push paperwork so they can send the guy who used to do that to the front lines. In the end, they'll find something you don't find objectionable that either helps the war or frees some other poor sod up to go to war, and make you do that.
[–]Nulono4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
And if you're opposed to supporting the war in any way, you're basically fucked.
[–]ARedthorn2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
By the letter of the law, they have to keep looking until they find something you don't mind doing, but they own you otherwise.
[–]shangrila5001 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yep, you're a traitor to the country then thanks to antiquated laws.
[–]King_Turnip2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
According to my father (anecdote inbound) it was the done thing in Vietnam to assign Conscientious Objectors to infantry and artillery units and not assign them weapons. They had to carry ammo and supplies for the guys who were fighting.
I doubt this was the case--why have a CO carry ammo without a rifle when he can dig latrines and clear explosives? I am pretty sure that the story made the rounds to discourage draftees from trying to claim CO status to avoid combat.
[–]zombob2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Oddly enough you can still opt out of Social Security. You will still pay taxes on it, but receive no benefits. Also no Social Security Card.
[–]JackBadass2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
such that if there ever is a draft, and you refuse, it's a crime
Unless you file as a conscientious objector.
[–]ARedthorn3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Even then. The selective service allows you to file as a conscientious objector as you say, but that doesn't get you out of service altogether- just out of combat or direct involvement. If they pick your name and you refuse to fight, they can still train you as a medic. If you refuse any deployment, they can put you on the factory floor building tanks. If you refuse any direct involvement, they'll have you posted to a desk, and assign whoever used to be there the front lines.
If you're an objector, you're still required to serve, just not in a wartime function.
[–]ztsmart2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Contract that people are forced to sign against their will...sigh
[–]ARedthorn1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
"Ah," but they'll say, "you aren't being forced- you can opt to lose citizenship, pay a fine and go to jail... No one's stopping you."
"And if you do sign, you don't have to be a soldier- just serve the military in a non-war function so we can make someone else serve. See how benevolent we are as we threaten you into 'voluntary' slavery?"
[–]Qapiojg1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I wonder how they redefine duress in this contractual situation.
[–]KingMong1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
"land of the free"
Hahahahahahahahahaha
[–]Edaric1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
volunteering is mandatory
Sums it up perfectly.
[–]RockFourFour13 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yup. Men are the ones still not granted automatic universal suffrage here in the US.
[–]JackBadass1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
B-but the patriarchy!
[–]scottcockerman4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well I think that in the event of a draft, they don't want to have to hunt down the names pulled in a lottery. The Registration gives them a current record of where they are. Remember, there's not really an all inclusive database for people under 18. people move around a bunch. They may not even know if you're still alive.
"The law requires that you notify Selective Service within 10 days each time you have a change of address."
[–]preventDefault4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
There's also fines and jailtime I believe.
[–]Nulono2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Officially, but they're rarely enforced.
[–]JackBadass3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yeah, it's a money issue. Prosecuting men who don't register with SS isn't cost effective for the government, so it's rarely pursued, to the tune of the last case being brought up several decades ago or something like that.
[–]Qapiojg3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Still 5 years in jail and a $250,000 fine isn't anything to sneeze at.
[–]Mitschu2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Welcome to the sad truth of America. Despite all the uproar and furor suffragettes raised over how women deserved the universal vote just like men, men still don't have the universal vote even today.
Simply put, men have the conditional right to vote. We have to meet separate requirements before we're allowed to possess that right.
Another fun fact - women had the conditional right to vote before suffragettes came along to demand the universal right to vote. One of the first female voters was during the colonial days - Lydia Taft, who voted in 1756, well over 150 years before women were granted the universal vote in 1920.
Another another fun fact - nowadays, registering for the SS is the only requirement placed on men, but back then, men had stricter conditions on their right to vote. Independent of the issue of women's vote, there were in fact men who were required to fight and die when the president ordered, but not allowed to vote for said president.
A final fascinating thing to look at is the difference between black suffrage and women's suffrage. Women demanded the right to vote unconditionally, full stop. Blacks demanded the right to earn the privilege of voting - namely, the right to join the military and fight alongside other men, prove their love and loyalty to the country, and so earn the vote. And it worked. Public sentiment was swayed, and by 1869, society was ready to pass the 19th Amendment and grant black men the right to vote.
Hindsight is 20/20, but is it any surprise that when suffragettes saw that black men were about to get the vote before white women, they formed a separate group (headed by Susan B. Anthony) to rally against black male enfranchisement? The so-called "Aristocracy of Sex" she so ardently fought against was the idea that people who fight for their country deserve to have a say in who orders them to fight. And so, civil rights were set back sixty years because of their "no, women first" attitude.
[–]daraste1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
formed a separate group (headed by Susan B. Anthony) to rally against black male enfranchisement
Do you have a source for this?
[–]Mitschu1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Woman_Suffrage_Association
The National Association was created in response to a split in the American Equal Rights Association over whether the woman's movement should support the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Its founders, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, opposed the Fifteenth Amendment unless it included the vote for women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Woman_Suffrage_Association
The American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA) was formed in November 1869 in response to a split in the American Equal Rights Association over the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Its founders, who supported the Fifteenth Amendment, included Lucy Stone, Henry Blackwell, and Julia Ward Howe. The AWSA founders were staunch abolitionists, and strongly supported securing the right to vote for the Negro. They believed that the Fifteenth Amendment would be in danger of failing to pass in Congress if it included the vote for women.
Anthony also held the belief that only women could speak about women's issues, and that it was an affront to allow black men the right to vote before white women. Whereas Stone had several prominent men supporting and aiding her movement for women (including her husband) and believed that black equality was the first step towards women's equality. Sadly, after the merger of the two groups, society chose to remember and commemorate Anthony as the true figurehead of equality, and Stone has been forgotten and left to the history books.
[–]daraste2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Thanks. I looked and could not find this. Good to have references when making points going forward.
[–]tragedyfish6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm in my 30's and I never signed up for selective service. I do vote, but I've never tried to get financial aid. I was not able to get a job at the post office, however.
[–]AustNerevar10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm pretty sure when you register to vote, they automatically sign you up. Since men don't have the right to vote (or work) unless they sign up. I've heard of people be signed up for it by their school when they graduate.
[–]Kairah6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Mostly likely you were conned into signing up for Selective Service at some point. If you've ever had to fill out a government document, odds are there was some fine print that let them copy over your information into the Selective Service registry.
[–]red623 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You're probably in it, you just don't know it. I was signed up without my knowledge.
[–]beingTOOnosey4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This just isn't true. I've voted many, many times and never registered. It's possible I'm among a minority that can say that, I guess.
Edit. I saw someone say they were signed up without being told about it. I didn't even realize that was a possibility. I've never been told in any way that I was registered. Maybe it was in the paperwork when I registered to vote and I've just never realized.
[–]scottcockerman8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Here. This site talks about it under "Building the List. They slip it in in other forms as like an extra checkbox. I doubt most people even notice it.
[–]beingTOOnosey3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well I apologize for my initial reaction. That is some kind of messed up. Sheesh.
[–]scottcockerman1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I worries. Didn't take offense to it. The law history is pretty interesting. They've jumped through some hoops to keep it like it is. Technically you can go to prison for not doing it but I don't think it really happens.
[–]AustNerevar2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Maybe it was in the paperwork when I registered to vote and I've just never realized.
Pretty sure this was this case. I think even if it's not "in the paperwork" they do it for you when you register to vote.
Let me put it this way...there's no way you could legally have a job or vote if you aren't signed up...unless you're female, that is.
[–]CatManDontDo1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I was signed up before my highschool graduation. There was this huge packet of forms we had to fill out to graduate and the SS was like half a sheet and a check box that only male students had to fill out.
Also i have seen it on voter registration stuff.
[–]Kairah2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Well now you've got me curious. Do biological men who identify as women have to sign up for Selective Service?
[–]AustNerevar5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
With the way that trans rights and the community is treated in the US, I would say that probably do, at least in most states.
[–]scottcockerman2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm curious about that too. I'm tired so I'll let you do the leg work on that one. :)
[–]stop_stalking_me8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
In addition to what /u/scottcockerman said, there's also jail time and fines.
On paper, yes, but it's been decades since the last time someone was charged for not signing up with SS.
[–]rapiertwit5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That's tactical. They don't want to stir up resentment against the law during peacetime, when popular opinion could turn against the draft and demand an end to Selective Service. They'll enforce the law plenty harshly when/if there's a draft in motion, but in those circumstances it'll be War Fever and nobody will want to do or say anything "unpatriotic."
[–]jcea_3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
People in this thread keep repeating that you are not allowed to vote if you don't apply for SS, this is not exactly true.
Nothing stops you on a federal level from voting, but there is a link between voting and SS
The reason voting for men became universal was due to it being viewed as unconscionable to force citizens to die for their country but not be able to have a say. Afterward the voting age was lowered to 18 as it was viewed as morally wrong that a soldier could die for his country at 18 but not vote.
When the draft was take to the supreme court it was upheld on the basis that it was deemed appropriate that citizens (someone who can vote) should reciprocally be expected to serve their country at need.
Not registering is a felony which in many places will cause you to loose your ability to vote in that state either locally or federally. However few have been prosecuted under this law though it can happen and in many places you will then be unable to vote.
https://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm
Registration is the law. A man who fails to register may, if prosecuted and convicted, face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years.
Even if not tried, a man who fails to register with Selective Service before turning age 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed.
See also Men over the age of eligibility to register. See also What Does Selective Service Provide for America.
blue triangle Register Now! - Register online.
STUDENT FINANCIAL AID Men, born after December 31, 1959, who aren't registered with Selective Service won't qualify for Federal student loans or grant programs. This includes Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), Direct Stafford Loans/Plus Loans, National Direct Student Loans, and College Work Study.
CITIZENSHIP The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) makes registration with Selective Service a condition for U.S. citizenship if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.
FEDERAL JOB TRAINING The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) offers programs that can train young men seeking vocational employment or enhancing their career. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service. Only men born after December 31, 1959, are required to show proof of registration.
FEDERAL JOBS A man must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service. Proof of registration is required only for men born after December 31, 1959.
https://www.sss.gov/fsstateleg.htm
State / Commonwealth and Territory Legislation
print this form using Adobe Acrobat Reader Printer Friendly Version Maintaining a high compliance rate is of concern to officials because it means that any future draft instituted by Congress and the President in a national emergency would be fair and equitable. Also, men who fail to register with Selective Service are not eligible for certain programs and benefits that Congress and most states and territorial legislatures and the District of Columbia have linked to registration. They include student loans and grants for college, government jobs, and job training. Additionally, immigrant men residing in the U.S. who failed to register when they were at least 18 years old, but not yet 26 years old, may be denied U.S. citizenship by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Many states and territories have passed legislation that supports the federal Selective Service registration requirement. Generally, these state laws require that a man be registered with Selective Service (or prove he is exempt from the registration requirement) before he can receive state student financial assistance and/or be eligible for state government jobs. Most of the state laws mirror, reinforce, or strengthen two federal laws below:
The Solomon Amendment added Section 12(f) to the Military Selective Service Act in September 1982. Male students who have a requirement to register with Selective Service must satisfy that requirement as an eligibility precondition for receipt of Title 4 federal student financial aid. Title 4 aid includes such need-based programs as Guaranteed Student Loans and Pell Grants. In November 1985, the Thurmond Amendment to the Defense Authorization Act established Title 5, U.S. Code, Section 3328, which requires Selective Service registration (of men who are required to register) as a prerequisite for appointment to most federal jobs. Currently, 31 states and one territory have enacted what is often called “Solomon-like” or “Thurmond-like” legislation linking a man’s eligibility for state-funded higher education benefits or state jobs to the federal Selective Service registration requirement.
Driver’s License Legislation –
Background: In an effort to ensure compliance with federal law among young men, many states and territories, and the District of Columbia, have enacted legislation which links Selective Service registration with the process of applying for a driver’s license, renewal, or state identification card. As a result of such legislation, in May 2002, the state of Delaware, which enacted driver’s license legislation in 2000, became the first state to reach nearly 100 percent registration compliance since Selective Service began compiling this data. In that same year, seven other states increased their compliance rates by 3 percent or more after enacting similar driver’s license legislation.
Description of Typical State Driver’s License Legislation –
These laws are simple and inexpensive to implement. They instruct the state’s Department of Public Safety or Motor Vehicles to include a consent statement on all applications or renewals for driver’s permits, licenses, and I.D. cards. The statement tells the applicant that by submitting the application he is consenting to his registration with the Selective Service System, if so required by Federal law.
NOTE: Females are not required to register with Selective Service under current law. Men age 26 and older are too old to register with Selective Service.
Transmission of applicants’ data to the Selective Service System is accomplished electronically through an existing arrangement each state has with the data sharing system of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVAnet) at no extra cost to the state.
There are two forms of driver’s license legislation:
Optional, where a man, age 18 through age 25, can opt to have his information transferred to Selective Service for registration by checking a box when applying for a state learner’s permit, driver’s license or renewal, or I.D. card.
Thirteen states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have driver’s license legislation which provides for the option to get registered with the Selective Service System.
Automatic, where a man, age 18 through age 25, consents to have his information automatically transferred to Selective Service for registration when he applies for a state learner’s permit, driver’s license or renewal, or I.D. card.
Twenty-seven states and two territories have driver’s license legislation which automatically registers men with the Selective Service System.
NOTE: All driver's license legislations only apply to men under age 26.
Summary of Legislations to Date:
Thirty-one states and one of the four territories have "Solomon-like" and/or "Thurmond-like" legislation linking a man’s eligibility for state-funded higher education benefits or state jobs to his compliance with the federal Selective Service registration requirement.
Forty states, four territories, and the District of Columbia have enacted laws linking a man’s application for a driver’s license, renewal, or I.D. card with his Selective Service registration.
Five states have no legislation supporting registration with the Selective Service System: Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wyoming.
Registration is the LAW. The effect of these supporting laws is twofold. They increase public awareness of the registration requirement and ensure that recipients of public funds are in compliance with federal law.
[–]McFeely_Smackup2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Don't they already know?
that's the ironic part. There's ZERO need to register specifically as they know exactly who is male and who is over 18 from a variety of other sources.
[–]rapiertwit4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's more than just announcing your presence. Registration is like a contract where you agree to serve if called up. That's why you have to do it after you're 18, when you can enter into binding contracts. If it was just about making a list of male citizens, it would be done at birth.
Now, what IS interesting is that contracts made under duress can be challenged. Threatening to throw you in jail if you don't sign certainly sounds like duress to me...
[–]McFeely_Smackup1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Yes, there's certainly the contract element, but as you said since it's signed under duress, it's not really a legal contact. Plus the fact that even if you never registered, you could still be drafted makes the whole thing a kind of pointless exercise.
[–]lldpell2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Ok your question was super neat to me so I looked in to it.
Link to SS FAQ on what happens
One of the other points is this:
STUDENT FINANCIAL AID
Men, born after December 31, 1959, who aren't registered with Selective Service won't qualify for Federal student loans or grant programs. This includes Federal Pell Grants, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), Direct Stafford Loans/Plus Loans, National Direct Student Loans, and College Work Study.
Which made me think back to our good old friend Title IX
Title IX: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of gender, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
How does title IX not kick in here, especially in regards to the financial aid? This is exclusion based on gender right? I must be missing something.
[–]DoctorSugarbear1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I had no idea signing up was the law until two years ago. It hasn't effected me in any way (yet) but I'm over 25 now so it might not ever. Who knows.
[–]shangrila5003 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If you went to a public school you were most likely signed up when you graduated, if you didn't get signed up through school there are other forms that have it in the fine print that if you sign the form you've signed up for SS.
[–]Folsomdsf1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's very likely you've already registered while applying for college.
You can't get financial aid, can't vote, can't get any government(or state sometimes) funded jobs, a possible fine of $250,000 and 5 years jail time. The selective service is also the reason males between the age of 26 and 31 can't gain citizenship. If you're under the age of 26, you can register for SS and you must register to be a citizen. So if you're past that limit, you have to wait until 31 for citizenship.
[–]Paladin3271 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Up to a $250,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison, plus the loss of certain entitlements
[–]firmness1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Here is a good list. The government paints it as "benefits of registering" which is sick on the face of it...but that is another issue.
[–]jeannaimard30 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Should get a bunch of feminists line up to register…
[–]cookieblue214 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That would be hilarious. Can we make this a thing? Can we have people go to the Women's clubs and Feminist clubs and ask them to sign up along with the men of the school?
[–]anon51544 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I've never heard a feminist say "I want equal responsibility".
[–]2_Blue_Shoes1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Let alone "equal standards". Have you seen the difference in physical requirements between men and women in the armed forces? It's absurd.
Men's physical standards are not what I'd call tough to meet, but the standards for women are just a joke.
You could point out that standards get easier as one moves up in age brackets in the armed services, and my response would be that the armed services need senior members who might have a harder time keeping pace with their younger colleagues and subordinates.
But do the armed services require women as a matter of necessity, and not a matter of ideology?
And surely, if we were to have physical standards that were sex-invariant, those women who remained in the armed services would enjoy a greater deal of respect and dignity, because everyone would know that they're sweating just as much as their male counterparts when it comes time to prove their physical qualifications?
[–]shangrila5005 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
They, meaning the vast majority of 3rd wave feminists (the ones who have turned out to be extremely radical) don't care about SS and usually come up with excuse after excuse and I've even been told it was a male privilege but the one who said that didn't want it to be a female privilege when I pressed the issue.
As long as it is in their favor or even against men they usually don't care in any way whatsoever.
Women aren't allowed to register according to the law, even if they want to.
[–]anon51527 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Women should NEVER be allowed to register for selective service, because having a uterus gets in the way of being a responsible citizen of the country. They may serve in the military, but having a uterus means they are not afforded the same obligatory right or obligatory importance to the country as men. While women in the military are surely valued, the obligation to serve is a right that is reserved ONLY for men. Biology = Obligation. Feminists, just deal with it. You will NOT win equality on this one, no matter how hard you try.
"/s"
Here, you dropped this.
[–]cookieblue27 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I have never been this excited about reverse psychology before.
I gotta give this a test run and see if it works.
[–]nobody200016 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Domestic violence vs. Government mandated violence.
I love it.
[–]ExpendableOne4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
on the left: men are violent and all women are victims. Come learn how to protect yourself from those violent men! on the right: men if you're not violent now, we need you to be and we will teach you if we have to. It's the law.
Talk about sending the wrong message, or just being giant hypocrites.
[–]WaffleSports13 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Not so fun fact: I say "do the right thing" to other guys when they get up to grab another beer. It's code for " get me one too"
[–]closetautist2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
That was actually pretty fun, at least compared to the rest of this thread.
[–]theodorapalams12 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So...there's a still a draft????
[–]ARedthorn19 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
In the US, yes, it's just not been activate in decades. Your citizenship, vote, and access to anything government funded or controlled is dependent on your agreement to participate.
Kinda sounds like they're ignoring our consent and coercing us into bed.
[–]rapiertwit3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Clarification: the right to vote is not directly tied to compliance with the Selective Service Act. Failing to register is a felony, and different states have different laws regarding felons' voting rights. Some ban felons for life, some ban felons for a certain time period, and some do not prohibit felons from voting.
[–]xTR1Cx2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The fact there's a consequence at all is the problem.
And you're still denied access to federal financial aid and other programs. Yes you might still get state benefits, but that circles back to "there's a consequence where there need not be."
Sub-clarification: the Supreme Court still ruled the S.Service legal on the specific grounds that it was payment for the right to vote- those exact words. A SCOTUS ruling bears as much weight as actual law- so while you're right and the S.Service code doesn't explicitly remove the vote (just a felony, etc, as you describe), it is still tied to your right to vote. Even in states where felons are allowed to vote, the federal government could cite the SCOTUS ruling to strip your vote until you register.
[–]theodorapalams2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Sorry, I was mostly trying to be cheeky and post that video from Stripes. Sorry.
[–]theodorapalams5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Couldn't resist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYodLUtySHk
[–]Nulono1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This video is not playable.
[–]andrejevas1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
If it's because of country restriction use this:
https://zenmate.com/
[–]dungone3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Was that seriously hung up just like that?
[–]Jska923 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
By any chance was this at WCC? I think I saw the same ones there a few days ago
[–]firmness2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Could be...
Thought I remembered something a while back about there being a law in the works to require women to sign up for Selective Service as well. I might be remembering that wrong, though, so don't quote me on that.
"Thought I remembered something a while back about there being a law in the works to require women to sign up for Selective Service as well."
Sorry. It had to be done.
Har de har.
[–]HoundDogs3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
You have the right to be the most disposable yet privileged member of society. Anything you say can and will be used against you, shitlord.
[–]nathan89992 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I saw a stack of those at my post office and threw them away.
[–]Folsomdsf2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Don't forget boys, it's a felony not to.
[–]Blutarg2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I turned 18 as Stormin' Norman was getting ready to launch into Iraq. Fun times!
[–]thesaucysquid69691 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Where in Westchester did you see this!
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Frank_N_Berry82 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dungone65 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Ragnrok69 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]RockFourFour15 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Madlibsluver6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]agentalpha5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]joewilson-MRA5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Frank_N_Berry64 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]scottcockerman89 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Frank_N_Berry55 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ARedthorn71 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]firex72662 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Stephen198529 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]kragshot19 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LandMineHare3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin29 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]GalenLambert11 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]GalenLambert9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin-3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]GalenLambert6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]GalenLambert3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin-4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]GalenLambert3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]GalenLambert2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]GalenLambert1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]GalenLambert1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]GalenLambert1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]GalenLambert1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Synaps43 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Zephs2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HollowOnTheOutside3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Zephs2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Zephs4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Zephs1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Zephs1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Edgevine2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Zephs3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Arakin1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Madlibsluver-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]yelirbear25 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]cheezehead4lyfe14 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]TheThinMan34-9 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]JackBadass7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]KAWUrban4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ICritMyPants1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Madlibsluver1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Cardplay3r1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Madlibsluver1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AustNerevar13 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]caveman133718 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]PatriarchyDrone15 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Qapiojg2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Frank_N_Berry10 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Okymyo50 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]phengineer4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Okymyo2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]jcea_1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Okymyo1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]jcea_1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LordFishFinger1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Stephen1985-5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AustNerevar8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Stephen1985-1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AustNerevar6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Stephen19853 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AustNerevar1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Stephen19851 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]neoman44261 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ARedthorn15 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]cheezehead4lyfe7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]PM_ME_UR_PLANTS13 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]shangrila5002 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]YodaVinci2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ARedthorn10 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Nulono4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ARedthorn2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]shangrila5001 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]King_Turnip2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]zombob2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]JackBadass2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ARedthorn3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ztsmart2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ARedthorn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Qapiojg1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]KingMong1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Edaric1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]RockFourFour13 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]JackBadass1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]scottcockerman4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Qapiojg1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]preventDefault4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Nulono2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]JackBadass3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Qapiojg3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Mitschu2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]daraste1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Mitschu1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]daraste2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]tragedyfish6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AustNerevar10 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Kairah6 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]red623 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]beingTOOnosey4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]scottcockerman8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]beingTOOnosey3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]scottcockerman1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AustNerevar2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CatManDontDo1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Kairah2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AustNerevar5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]scottcockerman2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]stop_stalking_me8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]JackBadass2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rapiertwit5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]jcea_3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]McFeely_Smackup2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rapiertwit4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]McFeely_Smackup1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]lldpell2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DoctorSugarbear1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]shangrila5003 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Folsomdsf1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Qapiojg1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Paladin3271 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]firmness1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]jeannaimard30 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]cookieblue214 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]anon51544 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]2_Blue_Shoes1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]shangrila5005 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]CatManDontDo1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]anon51527 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AustNerevar8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]cookieblue27 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nobody200016 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ExpendableOne4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]WaffleSports13 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]closetautist2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]theodorapalams12 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ARedthorn19 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]rapiertwit3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]xTR1Cx2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ARedthorn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]theodorapalams2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]theodorapalams5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Nulono1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]andrejevas1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dungone3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Jska923 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]firmness2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]JackBadass3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]firmness2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]JackBadass2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]HoundDogs3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]nathan89992 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Folsomdsf2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Blutarg2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]thesaucysquid69691 point [recovered] | Copy Link