I'm so mad at Rangel and the other guy (draft)

[Killarney]

That sponsored draft bills in the house and senate.

Because any time I try to explain to someone that voting for Bush is more likely to bring back the draft, they throw this in my face. That the draft bill is sponsored ONLY by Democrats! ARGH!

I know he did it to prove a point (maybe people wouldn't take war so lightly if their own kids were going to go) but it just sucks to have this in our face in an election year.

[forgethell]

1. Whatever happened to

'I'd rather be right than be President'? Not that I think the return of the draft is 'right'. Especially if it is just to prove a political point. But I have a sinking feeling that, as progressives, we are willing to throw away too much of what makes us progressive just to see Bush defeated. And it is so unneccesary. The economy, the war, the unfair taxes. We don't have to throw away something that WE fought hard for to find something to blame on *. What's next? civil rights, Choice for women?

[Chelzek]

2. This is strat

the a lot of people just can't see.

The repubs will use some embarassment to the party (like Rangel) to introduce draft legislation under the naive idea that the repub majority will actually let it pass with out exemptions for those they choose.

After it is introduced they repubs will pass it (this is IF Bush gets elected in november) - after they are done amending the dem introduced version to provide exemptions of course - and then IMMEDIATLY after FAUX and the other stations will repeat 100 million times for the next month "Legislation introduced by <insert tool here>, a democrat, has started the draft".

Thus the repubs get the draft they want, and the dems can be assured to lose any future election for at least the next 4 years because it will be widely believed the dems in congress started the draft. (and, technically, it will be true)

[Killarney]

4. That's what I'm thinking, too.

It was just a bad move by Rangel. Really, really bad.

[Chelzek]

10. sorry about the tons of typos

nt

[plcdude]

3. well

you can be sure now that the * maladministration will avoid at all costs instituting the draft. It's bad for business and promoted by Democrats. It is also time this country wakes up to the real possibilities of the costs of occupation. When someone you know or you yourself have the possibility of joining the occupation, it makes it a very real thing. We are talking about units returning now after they have spent a year or more over there and that is outrageous.

[democrat in Tallahassee]

5. Do you want EVERYBODY to go or only poor and minority kids?

That's the point Rangel is trying to make. Should Jeb's little boys get to stay home.

[bluestateguy]

6. bush's draft will be different

His draft will not be like the Rangel bill. Unlike that bill, the Rangel bill will apply only to men (the religious right will see to it that the draft applies to men only, citing some obscure biblical reference), and it will contain several lawyerly loopholes allowing the sons of privilege to weasel out.

Rangel's bill was a ploy. Not a particularly good one. I opposed his bill. In any event, of course the Bush people aren't going to say anything about a darft. Even Rangel has not pushed his bill particularly hard anymore. It's an election year! The easiest way to get young people to actually vote would be to bring back the draft, to say nothing of the suburbanite soccer moms who like to cheer on our bombings of other countries, but God-forbid little Dylan should have to go off and fight. After an election the rules change. Bush no longer has to face the voters ever again. A draft could be re-enacted early in 2005 to establish maximum distance between the next election. Also, most members of Congress are in safe districts, so a vote for the draft would not be particularly damaging. Members in marginal districts would be "allowed" to vote no. I fully expect that the first thing Baby Bush would do the week after the election, if he wins, would be to order more troops to the Middle East to further secure Iraq and prepare for a war with Syria or Iran. Around Thanksgiving the chatter about a draft will intensify, and the Administration will ask Congress to enact a draft in January.

[Ruby Romaine]

7. Read his bill carefully, he's for drafting WOMEN and no deferments

so chickenhawk REPUKES would have to go

no rich folks exemptions

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

-Under his bill, the draft would apply to men and women ages 18 to 26; exemptions would be granted to allow people to graduate from high school, but college students would have to serve.

[Offshore Bush]

9. So that makes it all better.

Repukes will have to die also. Yay. :eyes:

[Killarney]

8. The thing is...

his bill will NEVER get passed. If they do pass a draft bill, it will be some repukes draft bill with deferment loopholes for rich kids.

Nothing good could come from Rangel's bill. It will not be passed. The bad draft bill will be the one passed by Congress. Congress doesn't want it's kids going. So, the only thing to come from Rangel's bill is the reputation that Democrats are for the draft. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[beanball]

11. If you want to enjoy the privileges America offers

you should help defend your country,every man should be proud to serve.We all take but we don't want to give,oh sure we pay taxes but thats not the same as defending your freedom.The rich,poor,black,white and all the other hues should serve.

[sangha]

12. Would you prefer if the Repukes bring it up

immediately after the next terrorist attack?

[Ksec]

13. He better get a chickenhawk clause

to prevent the rich from getting out of it like they did in VietNam.

I understand what Rangel is doing and hes trying to make them feel this war they support.