That didn't take long: Leading Democrat proposes reinstating draft...

[Spins]

Rangel has proposed this for at least 6 years if not more and it's not as a political stunt or because he thinks it will prevent politicians from using the military. He’s far too smart to believe that.

The simple fact is he believes that a disproportionate number of black men serve in the armed forces because they do not have the same opportunities as whites do.

In other words he feels like the US military is using the black population to meet their needs, but that the US gov’t is not, in return, meeting the black populations needs.

I sincerely believe that he believes this. I don’t think it is a stunt.

He believes by instituting a draft that the white population will revolt thus giving him more power to affect social change.

It has about as much to do with the military as the turnover of Congress has to do with the country endorsing a liberal agenda.

 

[Ishmael]

If you think people in power can't avoid having their children drafted and/or sent to the front, then you are very naive indeed and that is putting it kindly. People with such notions should not be in power, or vote for people in power with such ideas.

Nut or not, serious or not, politicians that propose bad ideas for political purposes are politicians who are dangerous to the populace - because their constituency take them seriously. Playing with people's lives in this way for political gain, regardless of the goal, is not desirable in a leader.

Amen.

Ishmael

 

[bare_pussy]

If you think people in power can't avoid having their children drafted and/or sent to the front, then you are very naive indeed and that is putting it kindly. People with such notions should not be in power, or vote for people in power with such ideas.

Nut or not, serious or not, politicians that propose bad ideas for political purposes are politicians who are dangerous to the populace - because their constituency take them seriously. Playing with people's lives in this way for political gain, regardless of the goal, is not desirable in a leader.

I dont, but I don't think average americans can keep their kids out of a draft, and those gung-ho W supporters should have to send their loved ones over to the clusterfuck they've created. Unless their goal was to give Iran a ton of power, in which case we've won! You said "politicians that propose bad ideas for political purposes"....well, republican party would be nothing without that. Gay marriage? Sloganism? Propaganda? C'mon

 

[Borscht]

I dont, but I don't think average americans can keep their kids out of a draft, and those gung-ho W supporters should have to send their loved ones over to the clusterfuck they've created. Unless their goal was to give Iran a ton of power, in which case we've won! You said "politicians that propose bad ideas for political purposes"....well, republican party would be nothing without that. Gay marriage? Sloganism? Propaganda? C'mon

Off topic a bit, but my fave was Bush's sound business plan for offesetting spiraling fuel costs. He was going to borrow a shitload of money so that he could give everyone a present of $100.

Unfortunately, his minders spoiled it by wrestling the checkbook out of his hands for once.

 

[bare_pussy]

like the $300 tax refund?
yeah, helpful.
i'd rather have a balanced budget

 

[Holy Devil]

Americans are tired of wars. Just yesterday, they were trying to redefine "hunger" when they discovered that there are some Americans who are hungry.

Its time we look at the problems closer to home.

 

[SquireCroker]

like the $300 tax refund?
yeah, helpful.
i'd rather have a balanced budget

You must be one of those "tax and spend" types. Instead of a "don't tax and spend anyway" type.

 

[Ishmael]

Rangel has proposed this for at least 6 years if not more and it's not as a political stunt or because he thinks it will prevent politicians from using the military. He’s far too smart to believe that.

The simple fact is he believes that a disproportionate number of black men serve in the armed forces because they do not have the same opportunities as whites do.

In other words he feels like the US military is using the black population to meet their needs, but that the US gov’t is not, in return, meeting the black populations needs.

I sincerely believe that he believes this. I don’t think it is a stunt.

He believes by instituting a draft that the white population will revolt thus giving him more power to affect social change.

It has about as much to do with the military as the turnover of Congress has to do with the country endorsing a liberal agenda.

"Feelings, oh oh oh feelings."

Funny, I don't see a disproportionate amount of 'black faces' in the military crowd. Do you? Where?

In 1983 the Army was 28.3% black. It's now 24%. By anyones measure that is a 16+% reductiion in that minority. Hispanic has increased to 9.9% from 3.8. Almost the same amount as the reduction in blacks. And the Hispanics are still far under represented.

Females have gone from 12.4% to 19.2%. Another population far underrepresented. I'm sure the new draft will be 'normed' to take these numbers into account.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Ishmael

 

[bare_pussy]

You must be one of those "tax and spend" types. Instead of a "don't tax and spend anyway" type.

i believe in tax and spend wisely

 

[JazzManJim]

i believe in tax and spend wisely

Not a bad starting position.

I like "tax little and spend less".

 

[Spins]

"Feelings, oh oh oh feelings."

Funny, I don't see a disproportionate amount of 'black faces' in the military crowd. Do you? Where?

In 1983 the Army was 28.3% black. It's now 24%. By anyones measure that is a 16+% reductiion in that minority. Hispanic has increased to 9.9% from 3.8. Almost the same amount as the reduction in blacks. And the Hispanics are still far under represented.

Females have gone from 12.4% to 19.2%. Another population far underrepresented. I'm sure the new draft will be 'normed' to take these numbers into account.

Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

Ishmael

I never said it was rational or that the numbers back it up.

I simply stated what Rangel believes and the fact that I believe he is sincere in that belief.

Plus I pointed out that the reasons given by others were wrong and then gave the real reason, but that is neither here nor there

 

[Borscht]

You must be one of those "tax and spend" types. Instead of a "don't tax and spend anyway" type.

Of course, maybe us sane folks are wrong and the Rapture really is due to hit.

That seems to be pretty much what the Republicans economic 'policy' is relying on.

 

[The Heretic]

I dont, but I don't think average americans can keep their kids out of a draft, and those gung-ho W supporters should have to send their loved ones over to the clusterfuck they've created.

Many do - for whatever reasons, they do. I don't think that people who support Bush are reluctant to have their children go in the military for that reason.

Regardless of those reasons, whether I support Bush's policies or not (I don't), I am not going to get into a debate about whether people should go into the military during peacetime or wartime - that is not the issue here.

The issues are:

1) Should they be forced to do so? For various reasons I already mentioned, my answer is an unqualified no. For most people in the US, regardless of political persuasion, the answer is no. Now maybe Rangel's constituency is stupid enough to believe his bullshit, but most people see through it, and see it for the dangerous bullshit it is. Comparatively it is not anywhere near as dangerous as what Bush pushes, but hey, equal time for calling "bullshit" on both sides of the fence is my motto.


2) Should they feel obligated to do so? Again no, and again for reasons I already explained. I am pointing out that the so called "liberals" are sometimes just as willing to play political games with our rights as the conservatives.

3) Are politicians leaders or just power hungry demagogues? I would assert that 99.9% of the time they are the latter, and that we need to recognize that. Sadly most people don't.

You said "politicians that propose bad ideas for political purposes"....well, republican party would be nothing without that. Gay marriage? Sloganism? Propaganda? C'mon

Stick around, read my past, present and future posts - you will see I am no fan of Bush or Republicans. I do call "bullshit" when and where there is bullshit - and left or right, there is plenty of it to go around. I consider "liberals"/democrats to only be ever so slightly less wrong-headed than conservatives, middle of the roaders, and just about everybody else - hence my alias here.

 

[Borscht]

So do you agree that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State or not ?

As to your second point, in societies as diverse as Imperial Britain and Israel, the draft was and is applied to all sections of society equally.

Do you really think that your own society is so much more corrupt than those two ?

Foxed you, eh ?

I guess that O'Reilly hasn't done a show about this stuff yet.

 

[TWB]

If you think people in power can't avoid having their children drafted and/or sent to the front, then you are very naive indeed and that is putting it kindly. People with such notions should not be in power, or vote for people in power with such ideas.

Nut or not, serious or not, politicians that propose bad ideas for political purposes are politicians who are dangerous to the populace - because their constituency take them seriously. Playing with people's lives in this way for political gain, regardless of the goal, is not desirable in a leader.

I personally do not want the draft to be reinstated. However, there is some merit to having a draft of all persons, like they do in Israel. It just means everyone has to spend some time supporting their country, one or two years out of high school, mandatory service. To suggest that someone who is in Congress who proposes bad ideas are "dangerous to the populace" is hilarious. Do you have any idea what you are saying???

Hahahaa. Oh my fucking god. . . Congress is deadly.

 

[Ishmael]

I never said it was rational or that the numbers back it up.

I simply stated what Rangel believes and the fact that I believe he is sincere in that belief.

Plus I pointed out that the reasons given by others were wrong and then gave the real reason, but that is neither here nor there

Then why did you even bring the subject up?

Rangel isn't 'sincere', he's cold and calculating. If he was sincere, he'd know the facts. (And indeed, I'm quite sure he does. But the 'facts' are at odds with his political purposes.)

My statements regarding who would get drafted still stand. The dropouts will still be on the street, and the middle class, at least those not terminally stupid, will voluteer for the bennies before being drafted. The political elite won't serve at all unless trying to build 'cred' for high office.

Ishmael

 

[The Heretic]

To suggest that someone who is in Congress who proposes bad ideas are "dangerous to the populace" is hilarious. Do you have any idea what you are saying???

Hahahaa. Oh my fucking god. . . Congress is deadly.

Yes, I know it is an obvious fact, but it never hurts to point it out. They agitate, I agitate. That's how the system works.

 

[Spins]

Then why did you even bring the subject up?

Rangel isn't 'sincere', he's cold and calculating. If he was sincere, he'd know the facts. (And indeed, I'm quite sure he does. But the 'facts' are at odds with his political purposes.)

My statements regarding who would get drafted still stand. The dropouts will still be on the street, and the middle class, at least those not terminally stupid, will voluteer for the bennies before being drafted. The political elite won't serve at all unless trying to build 'cred' for high office.

Ishmael

Numbers don't always prove to be right. Logic and rationalism aren't always the way to go.

I have spent a goodly amount of time studying Mr. Rangel and truly believe he believes what he is saying.

Whether or not I think he is right is a whole nother topic and not one i'm willing to discuss. I just thought i'd chime in with the real reason he proposes the draft.

You, of course, may disagree

 

[moana15]

Repubs are brave with other peoples' children

That was his point. And like others have said, it isn't a new point, so don't worry, you're probably safe.

Charlie's argument has always been that war is less likely to be waged if there is a chance that sons and daughters in your constituency might be in it. If the burden of defending the country is fairly distributed, you won't have a scary nut job with power (Bush) sending people into battle for needless, stupid reasons. Even a nut would hopefully consider it more carefully before you know saying shit like "bring it on."

However, as the head nut proves, a draft is no guarantee that the burden gets shared across the country. There are those that can still get out of it easy enough same way they get out of paying their fair share of taxes.

 

[JazzManJim]

...same way they get out of paying their fair share of taxes.

This has always been a funny phrase to me.

I wonder who could be so presumptuous as to decide what anyone's "fair share" is? I certainly couldn't. I figure if someone wealth makes up 5 percent of the total wealth, they ought to pay 5 percent of the total taxes. Never seems to be the case though, does it?

 

[Lost Cause]

"

Again, the 2nd Amendment is more about the power of the armed citizens against the standing government than it stands for a national official army.

Read the Federalist Papers

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

James Madison- FP 46

 

[Ishmael]

Numbers don't always prove to be right. Logic and rationalism aren't always the way to go.

I have spent a goodly amount of time studying Mr. Rangel and truly believe he believes what he is saying.

Whether or not I think he is right is a whole nother topic and not one i'm willing to discuss. I just thought i'd chime in with the real reason he proposes the draft.

You, of course, may disagree

Well, I guess we could always fly with ignorance and superstition. Just the people I want defending MY country.

No he doesn't. He's quite skilled at his rhetoric. Obviously. But never confuse rhetorical arguments for goals. What are his goals?

If you aren't willing to discuss, why are you discussing? Hmmmmmm?

Unlike TSG (Heretic) I truly believe Rangel isn't crazy. I KNOW he knows exactly what his goal is. And his goal is the unintended consequeces of a policy, not the policy itself. Rangel isn't stupid.

Ishmael

 

[Beco]

You voted for these idiots.....have fun telling your kids.

 

[Spins]

Well, I guess we could always fly with ignorance and superstition. Just the people I want defending MY country.

No he doesn't. He's quite skilled at his rhetoric. Obviously. But never confuse rhetorical arguments for goals. What are his goals?

If you aren't willing to discuss, why are you discussing? Hmmmmmm?

Unlike TSG (Heretic) I truly believe Rangel isn't crazy. I KNOW he knows exactly what his goal is. And his goal is the unintended consequeces of a policy, not the policy itself. Rangel isn't stupid.

Ishmael

I think many people would argue that having hope and belief are more powerful that logic and rationalism. Certainly it has proven it's worth in many causes.

I'm not really discussing. I'm just chiming in with some odds and ends.

I'm just here for the boobs.

 

[Ishmael]

Again, the 2nd Amendment is more about the power of the armed citizens against the standing government than it stands for a national official army.

Read the Federalist Papers

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

James Madison- FP 46

Fucking forget it LC. How many times have we been down that path? No one knows how to conjugate a sentence anymore.

Ishmael