REMINDER to Rangel bashers: Bushists are trying to make torture legal

[BurtWorm]

There are more improtant things going on right now.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Eh.

I find Rangel's attitude towards the first amendment also disturbing.

[BurtWorm]

3. Why, because he's exercising his own first amendment rights?

I don't why DUers get all riled up and excited over things like what Rangel said, but when you try to get them riled up over torture, their eyes seem to glaze over until the next person steps off the path of political righteousness.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Frankly, Burt...

it sounded something that Lieberman or Miller would say.

Or any given Republican talkshow host. Do you really think DUers wouldn't get riled up if a Republican had said it?

[BurtWorm]

8. Okay, but look at where all the energy here suddenly goes

Totally nonnutritious posting. And in another few weeks, Rangel will bash Bush or Boehner and he'll be a hero to us all again.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Well then what's all the fuss about?

[BurtWorm]

11. Rove is behind it.

He wants us distracted.





:sarcasm:

[hfojvt]

23. Context matters

Rangel, at least, is trying to be a uniter, saying 'we are all Americans'. Lieberman or Miller were not criticizing a foreign leader, they were criticizing their fellow elected Democrats and their fellow American voters and bloggers.

Also, kneejerk vitriol hurled at Rangel seems misguided to me, like suddenly Rangel is a total a$$hole. I know Rangel from seeing him on TV defending Clinton, saying that morality is about 'taking care of the poor and helping working people' more than it is about blow jobs. When I search the Congressional record I have found that for most POS bills that the House passed a Democratic alternative, which was a billion times better, was offered by Rangel.

This particular speech is a mark against him, IMO, but he is still one of our party's and our country's best. He is not somebody, like Lieberman, Zell, or typical Republican who has offered a long string of abuses and usurpations.

[Rex]

2. There are always more important things going on then the

'flavor of the day' and there is always someone willing to make a post to point that out. Then there is the smartass that has to post in the thread made about more important things going on, to point that out.

:evilgrin:

[MrCoffee]

5. that made my head hurt.

[bowens43]

6. Rangel's a nut.

He wants the government to kidnap your children , teach them to kill and send them to fight for Bush in Iraq.

Now this. What a f*cking loon.

[BurtWorm]

9. Is that what he wants?

:eyes:

And I thought he wanted Americans to own the wars they ask the soldier class to fight for them.

[cali]

7. The Rangel bashers are

nothing but a bunch of rather thoughtless reactionaries. I've seen some straight out disgusting remarks about Rangel. Sickening.

[longship]

12. Not disturbing to me.

Who doesn't think that the Repukes may try to exploit the Chavez remarks?

Rangel's words may rankle a few Dems, but I fully understand why he said them.

[BurtWorm]

15. I didn't hear how he said them, but I don't find them to be so bad

as they're transcribed. It's what you'd expect a Korean war vet who would be head of the Appropriations committee if Dems win the House back would say.

[MrCoffee]

13. Some people just won't be happy until Rangel, Reid, Pelosi, and Dean

line up to give Chavez a big sloppy blowjob.

[bluestateguy]

14. I'm a Rangel Basher for another reason

He wants to bring back the draft. He's naive and stupid if he thinks a draft would EVER be fair in George Bush's America. It would only result in more warm bodies for more neo-con military adventures.

For this reason, and not the Chavez remarks, I am a Rangel basher.

I have no position on the Chavez remarks.

[MrCoffee]

16. Did you read his "draft" legislation?

The idea wasn't to bring back the Vietnam draft. It was to force Congress to take a position on a bill that would require THEIR children to fight THEIR war.

[bluestateguy]

17. I read the whole thing

And it was a stupid stunt because it would never work the way Rangel and Conyers intended for it to work. No child of a Congressperson would have to serve who didn't want to. Where there are laws, there will be loopholes, even when there aren't.

[rasputin1952]

19. The entire point behind Rangel brining out the draft proposition...

was to ensure that people knew the GOP was sending people off to a war they themselves would not fight in. Charlie stole the GOP thunder, he is no one's fool and an astute politician. He played the neo-cons for fools and forced them to face a draft proposition they didn't want to face.

Rangel knew his proposition would never take off, he played it to get attention focused on the GOP, not to bring back the draft. It worked, he sent the neo-cons into the corner for quite some time, they could not defend their position.

[BurtWorm]

18. I support his position on the draft.

It's about connecting the voters with the wars politicians wage. He wants there to be a direct political consequence for votes for war, to make politicians think harder about sending the sons and daughters of their constituents to possibly die for other politicians' causes.

[bluestateguy]

21. Apparently, Rangel doesn't support his own position on the draft

He voted against his own bill.

[MrCoffee]

22. Because it wasn't about the draft.

[BurtWorm]

24. A bill is not a position.

[mmonk]

20. My painting Chavez as an off the wall nut,

people will not examine what he said or the fact the UN applauded. They will ask no questions.

[treestar]

25. Just because Rangel is a baby doesn't mean * isn't evil.

We can hold these two opinions simultaneously.