[Rictor]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061119/pl_nm/usa_politics_draft_dc

Remember when everyone was scared that Bush might re-instate the draft, and when this prospect was a major talking-point against the GOP? Well, guess what, now some Democrats want to start drafting people to boost troop levels. I feel sorry for America. You have two parties who are trying to out-hawk each other. I guess this is the fabled spirit of bipartisanship...except it's unity for war and more war.

"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.

Has anyone bothered to tell him that's he's supposed to be against the war?

[Ford Prefect]

I could be way off, but this seems like a calculated move to make the war even less popular. That quote almost makes it sound as though he's trying to paint the war's supporters into an uncomfortable corner. I can't imagine it would be particularly effective, but that's what it looks like.

[NGTM-1R]

The original move to bring back the draft was sponsered by the Dems too; this is nothing new. It's a scare tactic, nothing more.

[Janos]

I could be way off, but this seems like a calculated move to make the war even less popular. That quote almost makes it sound as though he's trying to paint the war's supporters into an uncomfortable corner. I can't imagine it would be particularly effective, but that's what it looks like.

It's pretty much that.

1. Politicians don't want a draft, it would be complete suicide, because
2. Civilians don't want the draft for obvious reasons.
3. Military doesn't want a draft because they trust in volunteer force.

It's a scare tactic and reverse psychology at it's finest.

[Nix]

hehe... Well let me play devil's advocate and say it might just get passed, with a majority of Democrats in the house and the senate now.  Funny how some of these war-hating Democrats will come around to bite you in the ass huh. 

Dems: Pull out of Iraq now! De-fund the war now! US Military soldiers are murderers! *insert your favorite excuse here*
Rangel: Institute the draft! Here's a bill! Put more people in the war!

Real tactful.. oh yes, lets just do the opposite of what your leaders of your party want to do.  Intelligence? I think not.

[Nuclear1]

What the hell?

Oh, right.  Nevermind, Charles Rangel's just a nut.  If this goes anywhere, Democrats can pretty much kiss 2008 goodbye.

The original move to bring back the draft was sponsered by the Dems too; this is nothing new. It's a scare tactic, nothing more.

So, after a hard-fought campaign resulting in many very narrow victories, the Dems think they can continue to act like ****ing pricks.

Amazing.

[IceFire]

There is very little different between the two parties. They have slightly differing platforms and bases of power but they both have equal numbers of far out crazies to both left and right.

[Hippo]

Political parties will be the destruction of modern day government.

[Mefustae]

I'd say he's just scare-mongering. Using the idea of conscription as an electric prod to remind people that war isn't something that happens to other people, as it could be you that might be called up to fight. His agenda is to prevent people from undertaking or supporting wars that really don't need to be started or supported, and talking about conscription is a sure way to keep people wondering if its really worth the fight.

[Nix]

What the hell?

Oh, right.  Nevermind, Charles Rangel's just a nut.  If this goes anywhere, Democrats can pretty much kiss 2008 goodbye.

The original move to bring back the draft was sponsered by the Dems too; this is nothing new. It's a scare tactic, nothing more.

So, after a hard-fought campaign resulting in many very narrow victories, the Dems think they can continue to act like ****ing pricks.

Amazing.

Not all are, but thats pretty much what they are in general.  Rangel thinks he knows whats good for our young people, he says? 
I mean, give me a break!  This is the party that calls our soldiers murderers, rapists and torturers, AND wants to institute a draft?  At least with the Republicans in power, we had some sort of normalcy.... 

[Ford Prefect]

Not all are, but thats pretty much what they are in general.  Rangel thinks he knows whats good for our young people, he says? 
I mean, give me a break!  This is the party that calls our soldiers murderers, rapists and torturers, AND wants to institute a draft?  At least with the Republicans in power, we had some sort of normalcy.... 

Nobody calls the soldiers murderers, rapists, or torturers, and I don't know where you're getting that. And, as has been stated in more than one post in this thread, Rangel isn't blindly contradicting himself; he's making a point, which is that if the more fortunate in our society had to worry about their children being sent off, perhaps we wouldn't be so hasty to enter wars like twenty-dollar poker games.

[Nix]

Kerry has on multiple occasions, Murtha has used it as a basis for his arguements against the war in Iraq.  The media itself has shined the spotlight upon one individual who actually did rape and murder innocent Iraqi's, and you KNOW that they absolutely were dying for such a story.  How about the mother who lost her son in Iraq, that wack-job Cindy Sheehan?  The media gives her a pass each and every time she opens her mouth!  The media rarely covers anything GOOD that happens over there, because the whole complex wants the public to think that it's a bad thing. Freedom of the press?  More like the wills of the people who own the Media, of those most are against the war for ludicrous reasons. 

And, IMO, that's a ****ty point to make.  Threatening the entire youth of America just cause we entered a war he opposes?  If he's trying to psych-out the public with a bill like this, it's an underhanded way to do it.  Just as I said before, it's just funny how the Dems will turn around and backstab (actually, **** on) their fellow americans.  Rangel isn't contridicting himself, yes, but it's the entire Democrat party who's contridicting itself.  They're split down the middle, the Blue-dog democrats who lean towards staying the course in Iraq, to the real threats to stability and peace, such as Rangel, Murtha, and McGovern. 

[Mefustae]

Perhaps we shouldn't go down this road, again. We've all heard your rants opinions on the politics and 'liberal media bias', and frankly most of us don't really care. Let's just keep on the subject, rather than getting into another pissing match.

[Ford Prefect]

Kerry has on multiple occasions, Murtha has used it as a basis for his arguements against the war in Iraq.  The media itself has shined the spotlight upon one individual who actually did rape and murder innocent Iraqi's, and you KNOW that they absolutely were dying for such a story.  How about the mother who lost her son in Iraq, that wack-job Cindy Sheehan?  The media gives her a pass each and every time she opens her mouth!  The media rarely covers anything GOOD that happens over there, because the whole complex wants the public to think that it's a bad thing. Freedom of the press?  More like the wills of the people who own the Media, of those most are against the war for ludicrous reasons.

All you're doing is implying is that the act of reporting atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers is tantamount to insulting the entire military. You've given nothing to which I can concretely respond.

And, IMO, that's a ****ty point to make.  Threatening the entire youth of America just cause we entered a war he opposes?  If he's trying to psych-out the public with a bill like this, it's an underhanded way to do it.  Just as I said before, it's just funny how the Dems will turn around and backstab (actually, **** on) their fellow americans.  Rangel isn't contridicting himself, yes, but it's the entire Democrat party who's contridicting itself.  They're split down the middle, the Blue-dog democrats who lean towards staying the course in Iraq, to the real threats to stability and peace, such as Rangel, Murtha, and McGovern.

Why is this underhanded if you support the war? That's his point. How can you support a war, but be unwilling to help if the government needs to fill the ranks? Most people in the middle and upper classes who supported the war didn't have to come to terms with this, because their children weren't the ones going. His point in suggesting a draft is to make them think about it. Don't get me wrong; I oppose what he's doing, but I categorically oppose any war that has the slightest potential for involving me, so my conscience is clear.

[Prophet]

Bunch of whiners... The country is at war. What happened to patriotism? The cold fact is that US is in deep ****. Politicians will pay for in a couple of years, I'm sure. The military has already paid for it, along with their friends and families. Now its up to the rest of the nation to do their part. The american people brought this on themselves, yay democracy.

My people have fought on their own soil against an alien nation. I guess that's why draft really doesn't evoke strong emotions in me. Bottom line is that yanks should suck it up. No more happy consumers life with big cars and greasy burgers. You wan't that oil, then go get it yourself.

(Disclaimer: I have previously stated that I have nothing against the average US citizen. That still is my stance. But I can't help but enjoy the irony. I forsee great things in the future.)

[Ford Prefect]

Eh, thanks, that was helpful. But may I remind you that a lot of us didn't want this war, and that Mr. Rangel knows just as well as everyone else that this bill can't pass.

[Prophet]

What? It hasn't even passed yet? I should read those articles more carefully...

Damn it. Nothing has changed.

[Nix]

You're right, I won't go down this road anymore, because any time anyone shows a shred of patriotism, or just because they have Republican ideals, they get blasted.  To this day, I've never seen anyone seriously critique a Democrat on thier position.  Rangel wants to introduce something which will inject more troops into a war that no one wants, and he's defended, not criticized.  Bet if a Republican proposed the bill, everyone would be *****ing this exact arguement, putting more troops into a war they do not want.  Talk about the double-standard, again. To hell with it.  It's not  worth my time.

 

[Mefustae]

Rangel wants to introduce something which will inject more troops into a war that no one wants, and he's defended, not criticized.

That's because you're doing the same thing here as you were doing over that Kerry thing a few weeks ago; you're taking this by face value alone and making snap judgements without actually thinking about what's going on. It's been stated several times already what this guy's probable motives are, and it's painfully obvious that they are not as sinister as your purport.

Patriotism is all well and good, but blind support is not patriotism, and is in fact detrimental to the very values you claim to support.

[Blaise Russel]

Patriotism is all well and good

Not really. Patriotism = anti-thought.