Rangel doesn't want a draft-- Dems so-called "fear mongering" is related to the fact that Bush's idiodic war has put us in a position where we might need one. THUS, the reality of the situation may require a draft. But this reality did not occur passively. It was CAUSED.

http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/11/21/king-solomon-pro-infant-vivisection/

Oy. Charlie Rangel is not really advocating a draft. Also, Swift was not seriously advocating that the Irish eat their own children. Rangel is advocating a public debate about the costs of the war, with testimony from Administration officials, and he is advocating that war supporters in Congress make a choice between ending the war and commiting political suicide. As he explained after voting against a similar bill he sponsored in 2004:

Rangel accused Republicans of using his bill to assuage fears that President Bush had plans to reinstate the draft, stating, “The Republican leadership decision to place the draft legislation on the suspension Calendar is a political maneuver to kill rumors of the President’s intention to reinstate the draft after the November election.”

He went on to urge Democrats running for reelection to vote no.

“I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration,” his statement continued.

“It should be subject to hearings and to expert testimony. The administration should come and tell us about our manpower needs, about recruitment and retention, about the extent to which out troops are overextended. And they should give us their views about shared sacrifice. If they did all of those things in a serious way, they would have to admit that my bill is an option.”

Decius wrote:

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Remember when Democrats were fearmongering that Bush would enstate a draft if reelected... Um...

Let's see how you feel about Rangel when his draft proposal passes. I suppose dying to allow a fat career politician to prove a sick point is better than dying for oil. Right?
Remember, Jonathan Swift was a sarcastic writer, not a politician. Besides, Rangel is a scumbag for many other reasons. The 1972 coverup of the copkilling Nation of Islam members was one of his early pet projects. This asshole took "Kill Whitey" a little bit too seriously.

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
Rangel doesn't want a draft-- Dems so-called "fear mongering" is related to the fact that Bush's idiodic war has put us in a position where we might need one. THUS, the reality of the situation may require a draft. But this reality did not occur passively. It was CAUSED.

http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/11/21/king-solomon-pro-infant-vivisection/

Oy. Charlie Rangel is not really advocating a draft. Also, Swift was not seriously advocating that the Irish eat their own children. Rangel is advocating a public debate about the costs of the war, with testimony from Administration officials, and he is advocating that war supporters in Congress make a choice between ending the war and commiting political suicide. As he explained after voting against a similar bill he sponsored in 2004:

Rangel accused Republicans of using his bill to assuage fears that President Bush had plans to reinstate the draft, stating, “The Republican leadership decision to place the draft legislation on the suspension Calendar is a political maneuver to kill rumors of the President’s intention to reinstate the draft after the November election.”

He went on to urge Democrats running for reelection to vote no.

“I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration,” his statement continued.

“It should be subject to hearings and to expert testimony. The administration should come and tell us about our manpower needs, about recruitment and retention, about the extent to which out troops are overextended. And they should give us their views about shared sacrifice. If they did all of those things in a serious way, they would have to admit that my bill is an option.”

Decius wrote:

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Remember when Democrats were fearmongering that Bush would enstate a draft if reelected... Um...

If Rangel's proposal passes, it will be the cause of 485 elected officials plus the President. It requires voting by both Houses and signing by the President, remember? Do you think that one person has the ability to cause this to happen?

And its not a sick point-- do we or do we not need more forces in order to secure the TWO countries that this President has broken? At this point, it's not even dying for oil-- we're beyond that. Iraq's oil will someday soon no longer be in our control. Now, the question is how many troops we need in order to secure our exit.

And Swift wasn't "sarcastic". It's called satire, and it's one of the oldest forms of political discourse. And it certainly has an effect. Rangel is one of the biggest opponents to a draft-- if you don't think his position wasn't carefully politically calculated, then you are incorrect. On the other hand, I assure you that there are plenty of people in the Pentagon who would be happy to create a system of mandatory service, just like South Korea, Israel, etc.

Vile wrote:
Let's see how you feel about Rangel when his draft proposal passes. I suppose dying to allow a fat career politician to prove a sick point is better than dying for oil. Right?
Remember, Jonathan Swift was a sarcastic writer, not a politician. Besides, Rangel is a scumbag for many other reasons. The 1972 coverup of the copkilling Nation of Islam members was one of his early pet projects. This asshole took "Kill Whitey" a little bit too seriously.

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
Rangel doesn't want a draft-- Dems so-called "fear mongering" is related to the fact that Bush's idiodic war has put us in a position where we might need one. THUS, the reality of the situation may require a draft. But this reality did not occur passively. It was CAUSED.

http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/11/21/king-solomon-pro-infant-vivisection/

Oy. Charlie Rangel is not really advocating a draft. Also, Swift was not seriously advocating that the Irish eat their own children. Rangel is advocating a public debate about the costs of the war, with testimony from Administration officials, and he is advocating that war supporters in Congress make a choice between ending the war and commiting political suicide. As he explained after voting against a similar bill he sponsored in 2004:

Rangel accused Republicans of using his bill to assuage fears that President Bush had plans to reinstate the draft, stating, “The Republican leadership decision to place the draft legislation on the suspension Calendar is a political maneuver to kill rumors of the President’s intention to reinstate the draft after the November election.”

He went on to urge Democrats running for reelection to vote no.

“I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration,” his statement continued.

“It should be subject to hearings and to expert testimony. The administration should come and tell us about our manpower needs, about recruitment and retention, about the extent to which out troops are overextended. And they should give us their views about shared sacrifice. If they did all of those things in a serious way, they would have to admit that my bill is an option.”

Decius wrote:

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Remember when Democrats were fearmongering that Bush would enstate a draft if reelected... Um...

Please address this humanitarian's copkilling cover-up from '72. I find it ironic that a democrat (the beacons of peace, liberty and justice) proposes a draft (that he's against).

In terms of sheer bleeding heart vapidity, that outdoes Mass. Sen. John Kerry's admission that he voted against the war before he voted for it. Doesn't this tyrant have anything better to do in his public service career than propose bills that he does not support?

Besides, doesn't Rangel often claim that he wishes to see more african americans in positions of public service? I guess the armed forces were not what he had in mind.

Maybe this man could spend some time drafting constructive proposals. New York certainly needs more than a cheeky draft proposal. Possibly, he could propose a bill drafting 18 to 25 years olds to man the soup kitchens that are threatened with closure in the big apple.

BTW, Swift's modest proposal was sarcasm, not satire.

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
If Rangel's proposal passes, it will be the cause of 485 elected officials plus the President. It requires voting by both Houses and signing by the President, remember? Do you think that one person has the ability to cause this to happen?

And its not a sick point-- do we or do we not need more forces in order to secure the TWO countries that this President has broken? At this point, it's not even dying for oil-- we're beyond that. Iraq's oil will someday soon no longer be in our control. Now, the question is how many troops we need in order to secure our exit.

And Swift wasn't "sarcastic". It's called satire, and it's one of the oldest forms of political discourse. And it certainly has an effect. Rangel is one of the biggest opponents to a draft-- if you don't think his position wasn't carefully politically calculated, then you are incorrect. On the other hand, I assure you that there are plenty of people in the Pentagon who would be happy to create a system of mandatory service, just like South Korea, Israel, etc.

Vile wrote:
Let's see how you feel about Rangel when his draft proposal passes. I suppose dying to allow a fat career politician to prove a sick point is better than dying for oil. Right?
Remember, Jonathan Swift was a sarcastic writer, not a politician. Besides, Rangel is a scumbag for many other reasons. The 1972 coverup of the copkilling Nation of Islam members was one of his early pet projects. This asshole took "Kill Whitey" a little bit too seriously.

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
Rangel doesn't want a draft-- Dems so-called "fear mongering" is related to the fact that Bush's idiodic war has put us in a position where we might need one. THUS, the reality of the situation may require a draft. But this reality did not occur passively. It was CAUSED.

http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/11/21/king-solomon-pro-infant-vivisection/

Oy. C... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

If Rangel's proposal passes, it will be the cause of 485 elected officials plus the President. It requires voting by both Houses and signing by the President, remember? Do you think that one person has the ability to cause this to happen?

And its not a sick point-- do we or do we not need more forces in order to secure the TWO countries that this President has broken? At this point, it's not even dying for oil-- we're beyond that. Iraq's oil will someday soon no longer be in our control. Now, the question is how many troops we need in order to secure our exit.

And Swift wasn't "sarcastic". It's called satire, and it's one of the oldest forms of political discourse. And it certainly has an effect. Rangel is one of the biggest opponents to a draft-- if you don't think his position wasn't carefully politically calculated, then you are incorrect. On the other hand, I assure you that there are plenty of people in the Pentagon who would be happy to create a system of mandatory service, just like South Korea, Israel, etc.

Vile wrote:
Let's see how you feel about Rangel when his draft proposal passes. I suppose dying to allow a fat career politician to prove a sick point is better than dying for oil. Right?
Remember, Jonathan Swift was a sarcastic writer, not a politician. Besides, Rangel is a scumbag for many other reasons. The 1972 coverup of the copkilling Nation of Islam members was one of his early pet projects. This asshole took "Kill Whitey" a little bit too seriously.

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
Rangel doesn't want a draft-- Dems so-called "fear mongering" is related to the fact that Bush's idiodic war has put us in a position where we might need one. THUS, the reality of the situation may require a draft. But this reality did not occur passively. It was CAUSED.

http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/11/21/king-solomon-pro-infant-vivisection/

Oy. Charlie Rangel is not really advocating a draft. Also, Swift was not seriously advocating that the Irish eat their own children. Rangel is advocating a public debate about the costs of the war, with testimony from Administration officials, and he is advocating that war supporters in Congress make a choice between ending the war and commiting political suicide. As he explained after voting against a similar bill he sponsored in 2004:

Rangel accused Republicans of using his bill to assuage fears that President Bush had plans to reinstate the draft, stating, “The Republican leadership decision to place the draft legislation on the suspension Calendar is a political maneuver to kill rumors of the President’s intention to reinstate the draft after the November election.”

He went on to urge Democrats running for reelection to vote no.

“I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration,” his statement continued.

“It should be subject to hearings and to expert testimony. The administration should come and tell us about our manpower needs, about recruitment and retention, about the extent to which out troops are overextended. And they should give us their views about shared sacrifice. If they did all of those things in a serious way, they would have to admit that my bill is an option.”

Decius wrote:

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Remember when Democrats were fearmongering that Bush would enstate a draft if reelected... Um...

BUT all that shit that is above this sentence is just jibber jabber. I am the logical WINNER of this post! Judge it iff you darr

Make HIM grab a gun and go to Iraq.

Rattle wrote:

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Remember when Democrats were fearmongering that Bush would enstate a draft if reelected... Um...

Someone please smack Rangel...

Umm... As I understand it, Rangel's draft maneuverings have more to do with forcing the more hawkish members of congress to go on record as having voted for or against a draft. Part of his point is also that these same elected officials would be less likely to vote for armed conflict if they knew that their children could be called up to serve in the event of said conflict...

Umm... As I understand it, Rangel's draft maneuverings have more to do with forcing the more hawkish members of congress to go on record as having voted for or against a draft. Part of his point is also that these same elected officials would be less likely to vote for armed conflict if they knew that their children could be called up to serve in the event of said conflict...

Sounds like a case of the man simply having NO BRAINS then...

That's a stupid way of "making a point".

Our Military would be weakened by a forced conscription and draft, as it is today, our Military is ALL VOLUNTEER.

Which means, that each and every person that HASN'T served our country, needs to take a moment, find one who has, and THANK THEM for their commitment and sacrifice. REGARDLESS of the "conflict", war, or action they were/are involved in, these people believe in the "American Way of Life" so strongly, that they are willing to sacrifice their time, and in some cases, their life, to be the strong force of our Government. (Regardless if you feel the particular action is right or wrong.)

Please, take a moment to thank your nearest sailor, airman, soldier, marine, and coast guard. If you don't know any, here are a few links to find a way to say "Thanks".

http://www.uso.org/whatwedo/specialprograms/

http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=support_troops

http://www.usocares.org/src/uso_home.htm

Thats my 2¢, YMMV.

dc0de.

If you're feeling charitable over the holidays you could do worse than to donate to one of these.

dc0de wrote:

Please, take a moment to thank your nearest sailor, airman, soldier, marine, and coast guard. If you don't know any, here are a few links to find a way to say "Thanks".

http://www.uso.org/whatwedo/specialprograms/

http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=support_troops

http://www.usocares.org/src/uso_home.htm

Thats my 2¢, YMMV.

dc0de.