DEMOCRAT calls for reinstating the DRAFT

What now, sheep?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/142386,CST-NWS-mil20.article


Lawmaker wants to bring back draft
Doing so would act as deterrent to war, he says

November 20, 2006
BY JOHN HEILPRIN
WASHINGTON -- Americans wou :claps :claps :claps ld have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

More at link




What now sheep? After all your bitching and moaning about "bush is gonna reinstate the draft", it's your own pig that makes that proposal. :lol:

Will you limp-wristers continue with the hysterics or finally shut the fuck up about the draft?

:claps :claps :claps :peanutbutter :peanutbutter :peanutbutter

[White_Male_Canada]

The democrats had infact fearmongered on that non-issue:

2004 :

Will draft fears sway voters?
Cleland and Dean tell students that Bush would conscript them and ship them to Iraq

“America will reinstate the military draft” if Bush is re-elected and continues the Iraq War, Cleland predicted, according to an account of his speech by the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Howard Dean, now traveling the country to drum up support for Kerry and raise money for Democratic candidates, said last week at Brown University in Providence, R.I., "I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term, and any young person that doesn't want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6027815/




"Rangel wants to make the typical liberal case that adults are incapable of free choice.... He plans on turning the military from the most effective fighting force in world history to the government's biggest social engineering program.

If one wants to see the difference between Republicans and democrats, this gives a clear example. Rangel wants to solve a social ill that really doesn't exist, caused by too much choice, and use the government to eliminate all of the options available to Americans.

We can expect to see this same template for health-care "reform", entitlement "reform", and a number of other "reforms" that the democrats will now pursue."

[White_Male_Canada]

The sheeple , strange how silent the bleeting becomes.

The Republicans called Rangel out on his kook draft bill in 2004:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll494.xml

Rangel voted against his own idea ! 8) Kook Murtha and Stark did.

Rangel`s draft would be for the ages of 18-42. This kook wants mothers to be drafted. Obvious what this flake is up to.

Silence? Am I breaking the silence?


Hellooooooooooooooooooooo...... sheepmike... Rangel... Kerry?

[White_Male_Canada]

Silence? Am I breaking the silence?


Hellooooooooooooooooooooo...... sheepmike... Rangel... Kerry?

Rangel : " Reinstate the Draft now !!! "

Republicans: " ok,let`s vote on it. All in favor of a Draft say Yea"

Reply: Silence.

Republicans: "All those against the Draft say Nea."

Rangel: "Nea !"

[LG]

Read the fucking article, mate. The guy says:

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way''

What, are you allergic to finishing articles?

Read the fucking article, mate. The guy says:

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way''

What, are you allergic to finishing articles?


Yeah, I dont know where you're from but in the real world that's called

DOUBLE TALK


It was used back as far as I remember by the likes of Gary Hart and Walter Mondale up to "Whats your definition of word 'The'" Bill Clinton and "I Voted for it before I voted against it Kerry".

Let's cut to the meaning of what he really said and that is "Democrats want to reinstate the draft"

Enough said. Democrats have mastered the art of duplicity.

[White_Male_Canada]

Read the fucking article, mate. The guy says:

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way''

What, are you allergic to finishing articles?

So by reinstating the Draft now Rangel achieves what ?

Will Rangel then demand POTUS withdraw all troops,

then re-invade !?

"their kids" !? His draft ages would be 18-42. Rangel wants to draft your mom.

Rangel already had his bluff called- HE VOTED AGAINST THE DRAFT !

Rangel already had his bluff called- HE VOTED AGAINST THE DRAFT ![/b]

Well, he voted against it before he spoke out for it. (Heh, double talk)

[Caleigh]

Read the fucking article, mate. The guy says:

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way''

He just wants there to be a cost for the %$@#ing criminals that have totally taken advantage of this war with their profiteering. Didn't anyone watch that scene in Farenheight 9/11 where Michael Moore is trying to find A SINGLE politician who has a kid serving in the armed forces.

[chefmike]

Lost Honor: Charles Rangel, the Draft, and Why Bush Should Resign


Charles Rangel is right to call for a draft. The present system is unfair. We don't really have an "all-volunteer" military. We have a recruited military and the recruiting is mostly done where it works, in other words in middle class and working class neighborhoods and from "legacy" families where someone is already in the military.

Where recruiters usually don't bother going---and often aren't even allowed to go---is to elite private high schools and colleges.

The spirit of the Vietnam-era deferments has carried into the all-volunteer era. There is a subtle unstated, unplanned but nevertheless real collusion between the upper middle class, the military and the civilian government. Everyone is happy to leave things the way they are. The upper classes aren't asked to serve. The government doesn't have to spend money on expensive ROTC programs in top schools or fight to get recruiters on anti-military campuses.

No one has done more to perpetuate the recruiting status quo than President Bush. After 9/11 he asked our military to go to war. He asked the rest of us to travel, go on vacation and shop.

Following 9/11, like most Americans, I rallied behind our president. I did this even though I had been disgusted by his dirty-tricks same campaign against John McCain in the primary elections. You see I had a very personal stake in the success of the "war on terror." My youngest son was a Marine. I desperately wanted to believe in the man who held my son's life in his hands. Even though I had worked hard for McCain's nomination after the war in Afghanistan started my response to friends who spoke against Bush was basically; "Go to hell, how dare you criticize my son's commander while my beloved boy is in harm's way?"

Bush said we were in a "global war" then sent fewer soldiers to Afghanistan than there are cops in Manhattan. He let bin Laden get away with murder and let jihad-funding Saudi Arabia off the hook. Bush called two-faced, terror-sponsoring Pakistan an "ally" and then attacked Iraq. The Commander in Chief changed his "reasons" for war from eliminating weapons of mass destruction to "building democracy." Then---by not sending enough troops to Iraq, for the post-war "reconstruction" phase---he showed himself to be one of the most incompetent war leaders in American history. And throughout Bush has never asked his own class, the most privileged Americans, to step up.

Do you remember after 9/11 how we were so ready to do whatever was asked of us? What did President Bush NOT ask?

"My fellow Americans we are at war. I am calling on every American of military-service-age to consider volunteering including those of you fortunate enough to be in our best private colleges or employed in highly paid jobs. The spirit of defending our democracy requires that Americans of all classes fairly share the sacrifice we must now make.

"The attack on us was perpetrated by fanatics financed by our dollars. Our oil consumption has funneled billions to terrorists and the so-called religious schools all over the world where a hate-filled ideology is taught. I am therefore calling on Congress to enact emergency legislation that will cut our dependence on oil in half within five years. I am asking you to accept a two dollar-per-gallon gas tax. This money will be used to finance a massive crash program to develop new energy sources and to expand our military.

"Our response to unprovoked aggression must involve every American. So I'm proud to tell you that my military-age children walked to a military recruiting office this afternoon and volunteered. We are all in this war together..."

*****

If the leaders of the Republican Party cared about our troops they would be asking President Bush to resign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/lost-honor-charles-range_b_34663.html

[White_Male_Canada]

Lost Honor: Charles Rangel, the Draft, and Why Bush Should Resign


[b]The spirit of the Vietnam-era deferments has carried into the all-volunteer era. There is a subtle unstated, unplanned but nevertheless real collusion between the upper middle class, the military and the civilian government. Everyone is happy to leave things the way they are. The upper classes aren't asked to serve. The government doesn't have to spend money on expensive ROTC programs in top schools or fight to get recruiters on anti-military campuses.

l

Uh-yeah.so much for the 'freedom of choice' mantra the left loves to vomit.

And now,the rest of the story:

" I believe that if we are going to send our children to war...Yet the Congress that voted overwhelmingly to allow the use of force in Iraq includes only one member who has a child in the enlisted ranks of the military — just a few more have children who are officers." NY Times

The construct that calls military men and women "children" is insulting beyond belief. They're adults.


"Rangel said. "For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance." " CNN

"Service in our nation's armed forces is no longer a common experience. A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military..." NY Times

Rangel,Pfft~ more BS from another cheap shot propagandist.

And now,the rest of,the rest of the story :

- U.S. military recruits are more similar than dissimilar to the American youth population. The slight differences are that wartime U.S. military enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on average than their civilian peers.
Recruits have a higher percentage of high school graduates and representation from Southern and rural areas. No evidence indicates exploitation of racial minorities (either by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). Finally, the distribution of household income of recruits is noticeably higher than that of the entire youth population. ...

-By assigning each recruit the median 1999 household income for his hometown ZIP code as determined from Census 2000, the mean income for 2004 recruits was $43,122 (in 1999 dollars). For 2005 recruits, it was $43,238 (in 1999 dollars). These are increases over the mean incomes for the 1999 cohort ($41,141) and 2003 cohort ($42,822). The national median published in Census 2000 was $41,994. This indicates that, on average, the 2004 and 2005 recruit populations come from even wealthier areas than their peers who enlisted in 1999 and 2003.

-When comparing these wartime recruits (2003– 2005) to the resident population ages 18–24 (as recorded in Census 2000), areas with median household income levels between $35,000 and $79,999 were overrepresented, along with income categories between $85,000 and $94,999. (See Chart 2.) Though the mainstream media continue to portray the war in Iraq as unpopular, this evidence suggests that the United States is not sending the poor to die
for the interests of the rich. (Hert.Foundation)