Political Crossfire Forums

Random Evil Guy · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 1805

Kilo Tango wrote: ubikk wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: I remember a lot of Dems dismissing Rangel as not being serious about his draft legislation before, but guess what, he is.

That's right, cut and run, tax raises, terrorist rights, and ethics dilemmas are not enough.

Two weeks after the election and the dems are calling for a draft! :lol:

Well, you can't accuse them of being weak on defense, can you? Instituting a draft would weaken the military.

how so? what is your opinion on, for example, the israeli army? brainless cannon fodder?

Gus · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 7609 Location: Tampa, FL

Politics as usual. Soon there will be some counter-political move by the Republicans, and thus it will continue back-and-forth as it always has.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 445 Location: Ottawa

Kilo Tango wrote: I remember a lot of Dems dismissing Rangel as not being serious about his draft legislation before, but guess what, he is.

That's right, cut and run, tax raises, terrorist rights, and ethics dilemmas are not enough.

Two weeks after the election and the dems are calling for a draft! :lol:
Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc

Wow, I bet most people didn't know they were voting for the draft a few weeks ago. I'm sure that will be a popular part of the dems platform in 2008. Liberals love being drafted 8:). Could a party derail any faster than the dems have since winning the election?

What's next, prohibition? :lol:

Since when is a single Democrat with little to no support on this issue speaking for the Democratic party?

Because Foley believes in sex with young boys does that make the entire Republican party a bunch of pedophiles?

Stop thinking in Absolutes... please!

Moracca · Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 2821 Location: ar-Raba, KOM

Kill Tango wrote: He's saying we need a draft to challenge Iran and NK? Is he saying we're going to war with them? We need a draft to send more troops to Iraq? I thought the dems wanted us to start leaving asap? Is Rangel a neo-con?

Someone might want to send Rangel - one of the most powerful dems - the cut & run memo.

I think that the NK and Iran thing is what a lot of people are missing. Rangel is actually out front now that a showdown with both is upcoming and therefore a draft is needed. Imagine if it was Bush or some long standing GOP congressman who was talking about a draft and confrontation with NK and Iran in a military sense.

Moracca · Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 2821 Location: ar-Raba, KOM

Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: I remember a lot of Dems dismissing Rangel as not being serious about his draft legislation before, but guess what, he is.

That's right, cut and run, tax raises, terrorist rights, and ethics dilemmas are not enough.

Two weeks after the election and the dems are calling for a draft! :lol:
Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc

Wow, I bet most people didn't know they were voting for the draft a few weeks ago. I'm sure that will be a popular part of the dems platform in 2008. Liberals love being drafted 8:). Could a party derail any faster than the dems have since winning the election?

What's next, prohibition? :lol:

Since when is a single Democrat with little to no support on this issue speaking for the Democratic party?

Because Foley believes in sex with young boys does that make the entire Republican party a bunch of pedophiles?

Stop thinking in Absolutes... please!

Foley wasn't attempting to introduce legislation on man-boy love unions now was he? Besides, Rangel is a much more powerful lawmaker than Foley every was and has the backing of another powerful member of the House, Murtha...another very powerful lawmaker.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 445 Location: Ottawa

Moracca wrote: Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: I remember a lot of Dems dismissing Rangel as not being serious about his draft legislation before, but guess what, he is.

That's right, cut and run, tax raises, terrorist rights, and ethics dilemmas are not enough.

Two weeks after the election and the dems are calling for a draft! :lol:
Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc

Wow, I bet most people didn't know they were voting for the draft a few weeks ago. I'm sure that will be a popular part of the dems platform in 2008. Liberals love being drafted 8:). Could a party derail any faster than the dems have since winning the election?

What's next, prohibition? :lol:

Since when is a single Democrat with little to no support on this issue speaking for the Democratic party?

Because Foley believes in sex with young boys does that make the entire Republican party a bunch of pedophiles?

Stop thinking in Absolutes... please!

Foley wasn't attempting to introduce legislation on man-boy love unions now was he? Besides, Rangel is a much more powerful lawmaker than Foley every was and has the backing of another powerful member of the House, Murtha...another very powerful lawmaker.

Foley was placed in charge of a councel that oversaw changes in the laws/legislation that affected how pedophiles were to be sentenced. ;) Yeah he was given a portfolio that was counter his own beliefs and given the green light on doing as he saw fit.

:p

The draft will never be re-instated.

Kilo Tango · Joined: 12 Apr 2006 Posts: 9399 Location: D.C.

Random Evil Guy wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: ubikk wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: I remember a lot of Dems dismissing Rangel as not being serious about his draft legislation before, but guess what, he is.

That's right, cut and run, tax raises, terrorist rights, and ethics dilemmas are not enough.

Two weeks after the election and the dems are calling for a draft! :lol:

Well, you can't accuse them of being weak on defense, can you? Instituting a draft would weaken the military.

how so? what is your opinion on, for example, the israeli army? brainless cannon fodder? How so? Throw a bunch of people into a dangerous job they don't want to do and see what that does to morale. What motivation would they have to do a good job? Equals poor quality. Today's military is all volunteer - they chose to join and have high stakes in their performance since it has a large impact on their futures. We have a very professional and dedicated military and that would be seriously eroded if we staffed the military with draftees.

StrangerWitCandy · Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 5706 Location: Fairfax, VA

Draft = bad idea.

But its the one case where I do happen to support the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Because if a draft ever should come all I have to do is tell everybody. :lol:

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

gavnook wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: heh, americans are a funny bunch. they absolutely adore the troops, but freak out as soon as the term 'draft' is mentioned. are you all just a bunch of cowards or what?

Oh, I don't know. Overall, Americans seem far more tolerant of enslaving young men to be sent far away to kill people who pose no threat to Americans (in America) than they would be of enslaving the same young men to do something mundane, like picking cotton.

Gonna need to see that info that says that the majority of those in Iraq are minorities. Also going to need proof that if a draft were brought back that minorities would be the target.

Keep in mind while you're looking for this info that I am a SSGT in the Army and I am I minority. I also hold the office of being an EO representative in the military.

Your turn.

Moracca · Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 2821 Location: ar-Raba, KOM

Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote: Moracca wrote: Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: I remember a lot of Dems dismissing Rangel as not being serious about his draft legislation before, but guess what, he is.

That's right, cut and run, tax raises, terrorist rights, and ethics dilemmas are not enough.

Two weeks after the election and the dems are calling for a draft! :lol:
Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc

Wow, I bet most people didn't know they were voting for the draft a few weeks ago. I'm sure that will be a popular part of the dems platform in 2008. Liberals love being drafted 8:). Could a party derail any faster than the dems have since winning the election?

What's next, prohibition? :lol:

Since when is a single Democrat with little to no support on this issue speaking for the Democratic party?

Because Foley believes in sex with young boys does that make the entire Republican party a bunch of pedophiles?

Stop thinking in Absolutes... please!

Foley wasn't attempting to introduce legislation on man-boy love unions now was he? Besides, Rangel is a much more powerful lawmaker than Foley every was and has the backing of another powerful member of the House, Murtha...another very powerful lawmaker.

Foley was placed in charge of a councel that oversaw changes in the laws/legislation that affected how pedophiles were to be sentenced. ;) Yeah he was given a portfolio that was counter his own beliefs and given the green light on doing as he saw fit.

:p

The draft will never be re-instated.

Yes, and Foley introduced legislation to ban webpages that had sexually suggestive pictures of children. He was also involved with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The list goes on. His actions as a congressman went against his actions in his personal life.

In any case, I don't see how Foley has anything to do with Rangel's legislation proposal. The fact that it won't pass doesn't exclude Rangel from critism.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 445 Location: Ottawa

Moracca wrote: Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote: Moracca wrote: Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: I remember a lot of Dems dismissing Rangel as not being serious about his draft legislation before, but guess what, he is.

That's right, cut and run, tax raises, terrorist rights, and ethics dilemmas are not enough.

Two weeks after the election and the dems are calling for a draft! :lol:
Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc

Wow, I bet most people didn't know they were voting for the draft a few weeks ago. I'm sure that will be a popular part of the dems platform in 2008. Liberals love being drafted 8:). Could a party derail any faster than the dems have since winning the election?

What's next, prohibition? :lol:

Since when is a single Democrat with little to no support on this issue speaking for the Democratic party?

Because Foley believes in sex with young boys does that make the entire Republican party a bunch of pedophiles?

Stop thinking in Absolutes... please!

Foley wasn't attempting to introduce legislation on man-boy love unions now was he? Besides, Rangel is a much more powerful lawmaker than Foley every was and has the backing of another powerful member of the House, Murtha...another very powerful lawmaker.

Foley was placed in charge of a councel that oversaw changes in the laws/legislation that affected how pedophiles were to be sentenced. ;) Yeah he was given a portfolio that was counter his own beliefs and given the green light on doing as he saw fit.

:p

The draft will never be re-instated.

Yes, and Foley introduced legislation to ban webpages that had sexually suggestive pictures of children. He was also involved with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The list goes on. His actions as a congressman went against his actions in his personal life.

In any case, I don't see how Foley has anything to do with Rangel's legislation proposal. The fact that it won't pass doesn't exclude Rangel from critism.

His actions as a citizen went against his actions as a congressman. He said one thing and did another. Murtha and Rangel were both men who served under the draft and served the United States. At least their beliefs mirror their actions no?

Either way, Hoyer won over Murtha. the Democrats are not under far left control as the Hoyer over Murtha win has shown.

SideTraKd · Joined: 19 Feb 2004 Posts: 6860 Location: Indianapolis

Moracca wrote: Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote: Moracca wrote: Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: I remember a lot of Dems dismissing Rangel as not being serious about his draft legislation before, but guess what, he is.

That's right, cut and run, tax raises, terrorist rights, and ethics dilemmas are not enough.

Two weeks after the election and the dems are calling for a draft! :lol:
Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An influential Democratic lawmaker on Sunday called for reinstatement of the draft as a way to boost U.S. troop levels and draw a broader section of the population into the military or public service.

ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record), the incoming chairman of the House of Representatives' tax-writing committee, said he would introduce legislation to reinstate the draft as soon as the new, Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc

Wow, I bet most people didn't know they were voting for the draft a few weeks ago. I'm sure that will be a popular part of the dems platform in 2008. Liberals love being drafted 8:). Could a party derail any faster than the dems have since winning the election?

What's next, prohibition? :lol:

Since when is a single Democrat with little to no support on this issue speaking for the Democratic party?

Because Foley believes in sex with young boys does that make the entire Republican party a bunch of pedophiles?

Stop thinking in Absolutes... please!

Foley wasn't attempting to introduce legislation on man-boy love unions now was he? Besides, Rangel is a much more powerful lawmaker than Foley every was and has the backing of another powerful member of the House, Murtha...another very powerful lawmaker.

Foley was placed in charge of a councel that oversaw changes in the laws/legislation that affected how pedophiles were to be sentenced. ;) Yeah he was given a portfolio that was counter his own beliefs and given the green light on doing as he saw fit.

:p

The draft will never be re-instated.

Yes, and Foley introduced legislation to ban webpages that had sexually suggestive pictures of children. He was also involved with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The list goes on. His actions as a congressman went against his actions in his personal life.

In any case, I don't see how Foley has anything to do with Rangel's legislation proposal. The fact that it won't pass doesn't exclude Rangel from critism.

EXACTLY...

And it shows his extreme lack of judgement, which bleeds into other issues, such as taxation, where he has a great deal of power and does not need Congress to approve of his actions.

SideTraKd · Joined: 19 Feb 2004 Posts: 6860 Location: Indianapolis

Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote: The Democrats are not under far left control as the Hoyer over Murtha win has shown.

And yet, the highest positions within the Democrat party are held almost exclusively by the extreme left. The moderate Democrats were used only as a tool to gain power for the extremists, and their influence will only be felt if they are to be given an actual vote (as in the case of Hoyer/Murtha), which rarely happens.

Random Evil Guy · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 1805

Kilo Tango wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: ubikk wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: I remember a lot of Dems dismissing Rangel as not being serious about his draft legislation before, but guess what, he is.

That's right, cut and run, tax raises, terrorist rights, and ethics dilemmas are not enough.

Two weeks after the election and the dems are calling for a draft! :lol:

Well, you can't accuse them of being weak on defense, can you? Instituting a draft would weaken the military.

how so? what is your opinion on, for example, the israeli army? brainless cannon fodder? How so? Throw a bunch of people into a dangerous job they don't want to do and see what that does to morale. What motivation would they have to do a good job? Equals poor quality. Today's military is all volunteer - they chose to join and have high stakes in their performance since it has a large impact on their futures. We have a very professional and dedicated military and that would be seriously eroded if we staffed the military with draftees.

how about some actual objective evidence to support this claim of your instead of just your 'feelings' towards the subject? can you prove that the 'quality' of a drafted army is worse than an all volunteer army?

Moracca · Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 2821 Location: ar-Raba, KOM

Pierre wrote: His actions as a citizen went against his actions as a congressman. He said one thing and did another. Murtha and Rangel were both men who served under the draft and served the United States. At least their beliefs mirror their actions no?

Either way, Hoyer won over Murtha. the Democrats are not under far left control as the Hoyer over Murtha win has shown.

And that's why he's being investigated and has also been booted out of Congress. He has been punished. It still has nothing to do with Rangel's Murtha backed draft legislation. Just because Rangel and Murtha served in a draft time era doesn't mean that the draft is the right thing to do today. I know that I wouldn't want to serve in an Army unit with a bunch of soldiers who were forced to be there. It would create a pretty bad unit moral situation in this day in age. Rangel served when there was more of a sense of duty within the American soul while Murtha served in a time like today where most of the country is against national service. Murtha should know that the draft is a bad idea today seeing as he went through a similar time when he served. It was counter productive then and it would be counter productive today.

Hoyer is a leftist who had personal issues with Pelosi. Pelosi favored Murtha because he turned on the military and she didn't have personal problems with him.

gavnook · Joined: 18 Jan 2006 Posts: 1974 Location: Arizona

Heinz wrote: gavnook wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: heh, americans are a funny bunch. they absolutely adore the troops, but freak out as soon as the term 'draft' is mentioned. are you all just a bunch of cowards or what?

Oh, I don't know. Overall, Americans seem far more tolerant of enslaving young men to be sent far away to kill people who pose no threat to Americans (in America) than they would be of enslaving the same young men to do something mundane, like picking cotton.

Gonna need to see that info that says that the majority of those in Iraq are minorities. Also going to need proof that if a draft were brought back that minorities would be the target.

I don't have that information, and if I did it would be irrelevant. I really wasn't trying to say anything about race at all, although I'm sure it is a factor in how people view slavery. What I see as the major distinction between plantation slavery and conscription is the nature of the forced labor. I find it horribly wrong to force anyone to do anything, but there's a whole new level of wrongness when people are forced to kill. I suppose the fact that conscription is an equal opportunity form of slavery probably makes a lot more acceptable to many people, but it makes no difference to me.

And while I'm thinking about it, I suppose I can't ignore the fact that once the war's over, surviving draftees are free to go.

EDIT: spelling

micfranklin · Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:

gavnook wrote: Heinz wrote: gavnook wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: heh, americans are a funny bunch. they absolutely adore the troops, but freak out as soon as the term 'draft' is mentioned. are you all just a bunch of cowards or what?

Oh, I don't know. Overall, Americans seem far more tolerant of enslaving young men to be sent far away to kill people who pose no threat to Americans (in America) than they would be of enslaving the same young men to do something mundane, like picking cotton.

Gonna need to see that info that says that the majority of those in Iraq are minorities. Also going to need proof that if a draft were brought back that minorities would be the target.

I don't have that information, and if I did it would be irrelevant. I really wasn't trying to say anything about race at all, although I'm sure it is a factor in how people view slavery. What I see as the major distinction between plantation slavery and conscription is the nature of the forced labor. I find it horribly wrong to force anyone to do anything, but there's a whole new level of wrongness when people are forced to kill. I suppose the fact that conscription is an equal oppourtunity form of slavery probably makes a lot more acceptable to many people, but it makes no difference to me.

And while I'm thinking about it, I suppose I can't ignore the fact that once the war's over, surviving draftees are free to go.

I couldn't agree more.

Angelicus · Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 5162

ieatfood wrote: No chance in hell draft is getting anywhere near the president's desk

Rangel is making himself look foolish.

The idea that forcing people to goto war is better than having people volunteer is the stupidest most retarded idea i have ever heard of. i could not have dreamed up a more inane idea. This guy is truly not someone who is operating on all cylinders.

No its not. Not when you look at it from the point of view, that your ultimate goal is the destruction of our own millitary.

Believe it or not, the draft, would actually go a long way towards that end. Because a drafted millitary is not as motivated nor as effective as our volunteer millitary is today.

Thats a big part of why our own millitary doesn't want a draft.

But shhhh you didn't hear that from me, I believe the democrats when they say they are "true patriots that support the troops".

I really do................

:roll:

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: I don't have that information, and if I did it would be irrelevant.

In this case it would be relevant to prove your point.

Quote: I really wasn't trying to say anything about race at all, although I'm sure it is a factor in how people view slavery. What I see as the major distinction between plantation slavery and conscription is the nature of the forced labor.

Slavery is when you are forced to work with little to no benefits. In the Army you willingly join knowing full well what your job may entitle you to do. You know the dangers of your CHOSEN profession. Not only that, you get paid to do it.

Quote: I find it horribly wrong to force anyone to do anything, but there's a whole new level of wrongness when people are forced to kill. I suppose the fact that conscription is an equal oppourtunity form of slavery probably makes a lot more acceptable to many people, but it makes no difference to me.

If you're forced to join teh military, than that is different, but I wouldn't call it slavery.

Heinz · Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 1636 Location: Philadelphia

Quote: I couldn't agree more.

With what? That he's full of s**t?

Do you know the difference between being forced to work and signing up to work? I'll give a clue:

One is optional and the other is not.

One's called slavery and the other's called choice.

Even if there's a draft, which I pray there isn't, it is far from slavery.