Talk:Universal National Service Act

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Republican bias in this article[edit]

Rangel has said in several interviews that he introduced HR 163 because he believed minorities were being disproportionately affected by the war in Iraq, and that he believed that the current volunteer system encourages a rush to war by people whose loved ones are not put at risk (the "send Barbara and Jenna argument"). In my opinion, this article is rather one-sided, as only referencing the conspiracy theories of Republican columnists. I have made a start on balancing the article, by adding a quote from Rangel. However, I don't have the time at the moment to find all the sources to support this, but I will try to do so (and would appreciate help on the matter). Mateo SA | talk 05:36, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I removed:

Some commentators opined that the bill figured in a “scare campaign” to convince US voters that Republicans (or specifically the White House) had secret plans to re-institute conscription after the Nov. 2 elections. For example, John Sutherland, a columnist for The Guardian, claimed on May 31, 2004 that the bill is “currently approved and sitting in the Committee for Armed Services”. William Hawkins, a columnist for The Washington Times, denies that the bill was ever approved and claims that when Republicans brought it to the floor on October 5, it was for the express purpose of killing it.

We cannot just say "some commentators opined", specific references are necessary. - SimonP 16:37, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

i agree this article seems very biased. i am no expert in the subject but it seems that the author has brought in biased political opinion. the last section that quotes Obama seems like it has been taken out of context and doesn't have as much to do with a draft as it has to do with him calling out the nation to unite. anyway, perhaps there should be added the republican candidate's side to the issue. unless it is agreed that the section be taken out entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.249.62 (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor deletion[edit]

I've just removed the mention of Time editor Richard Stengel from the introduction; whomever added his name to the list of supporters has mistaken this legislation for a similarly-titled bill, on behalf of which he did testify. As explained in this section of his biographical article, that was H.R. 1388 and is actually much different. There was no citation here; there are citations over there. It's worth noting briefly that I do have a potential conflict with Stengel as a topic, as explained here, but I trust that this is an obviously non-controversial edit. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 bill[edit]

Just wanted to alert others that this morning I heard that a new bill has been introduced by Rep. Rangel http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1152

Asking for help getting more cites before adding to this page (Rep. Rangel referred to it as the 2011 Universal National Service Act in an interview on March 18, 2011)69.129.149.202 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Rengel ever give up? What an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.4.186 (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]