That link doesn't work (expired, I think). I'll try Thomas.
ThomasThat was Charles Rangel who may be trying to prove a political point. Draft Jenna and Not-Jenna? Or any of the others who sit the war out while making patriotic noises?I wonder what he had in mind.Ann
The Thomas link doesn't work either but it's easy to find.
Thanks, Granny - I'll try to get a link up that works a little better!
Orb quoting RangelTry this one. Rangel is a wildeyed liberal.
No question he introduced that bill knowing it would never have a chance. Just making his point. And he sure did. Never heard another thing about it till today.
Love this part:"Under the legislation, no deferments would be allowed for reasons of health and conscience."As if "officially" becoming a concientious objector wasn't hard enough already! As a buddhist, and just a guy with morality on the mind, I've been one for years despite being a military vet. The idea that someone would try to make me fight and kill against my beliefs, in a war I didn't support to begin with is just sickening to me on so many levels. Well, I do certainly hope that this was purely an exercise in making the right look more moronic as suggested, and not a serious bill. (crossing fingers)BTW, for anyone interested, here is a link on becoming a conscientious objector.
Forgot to mention about this: "But if our servicemen and women continue to be placed in harm's way, there must be a policy of shared sacrifice in which all economic groups are represented in combat. The only way to accomplish that democratic principle is reinstatement of a fair and equitable military draft." (My emphasis)Is this tongue in cheek? Was there ever a fair and equitable military draft?
And just exactly how does a bill sponsored by Charles Rangel make the right look even more moronic? Well? Take your time. We'll wait.
Answer: they can't even begin to look more moronic.See my post today about Gay marriage.
Watch 'n Wait makes a valid point. It seems obvious to me that Rangel was trying to make a point rather than seriously trying to bring back the draft, knowing that it'd be shot down immediately.That said... as a fellow Independent I must say that although the Dems have more than made their point that the GOPers don't deserve to and can't be trusted to hold this kind of power. But they've failed miserably to make the case as to why THEY are more deserving or more trustworthy.
Well, Kevin, I'm thinking about John Conyers fighting and fighting, and Russ Feingold standing up, along with the people who backed them, and trying to do the right thing..to say nothing of Barbara Boxer who is stubborn as hell and not afraid to give her opinion and try to get good bills passed. I think they're deserving and trustworthy. But suspect you're thinking of a presidential candidate, and we have to be damned careful to nominate the best one we can get our hands on.On another topic, I'm mightily amused today. Have said from the beginning that the only thing that would bring BushCo down is a sex scandal...and lo and behold! Randi Rhodes spoke about it on air as did another progressive Dem and take a look at www.waynemadsonreport.com wherein he writes that Bush & Condi have been having an affair, Laura found out and moved into a hotel... :)) So I looked up Madson's credentials...and they're pretty impressive. Oh, if only... :)))
No, I'm thinking of more than just a presidential candidate. Conyers, Feingold and Boxer have each impressed me at times. But, they don't hold the reins of power in the Democratic Party. The most riveting scene from Farenheit 911 was when black member of Congress after black member of Congress approached the microphone and begged for the Florida 2000 vote to be investigated while white members looked uncomfortably away. The respective party powerbrokers had made their decisions and nothing was going to change it even though something fundamentally wrong had clearly taken place in Florida. It is merely a matter of political convenience to place all of the blame upon Republicans while ignoring the fact that the Democrats willingly went along with it.A Bush sex scandal scenario brings back memories of the Clinton sex scandal. I remember all too well how Democrats routinely dismissed it as all about sex when in fact his Impeachment was clearly about lying under oath. While I would certainly agree that lying about sex isn't on par with lying about national security matters, the fact remains that Democrats deliberately misrepresented the facts of that case and did so for patently partisan reasons.
All good points, Kevin, and all correct. And that's the problem..where are we gonna find somebody with enough courage and smarts and conviction to take the whole mess of 'em on? Causes one to do things like Shea's little icon man. What we need is somebody who is gonna rise to the occasion. So who is it who is not going to buckle and fold? Who doesn't have faults opponents can't trash in that drumbeat that's so well developed? Have a question: Am flying to Arkansas the end of this month for a family reunion...and now I find out there's an insect down there..other than mosquitoes...they call "chiggers". Anybody know the best way to deal with those?
Wow, thanks for all the responses here, everyone! Thanks, Mike V., for answering Rick so succinctly and accuratly. And Kevin, the impeachment was as much about the sex scandal, if not more so, because that is what resonated with the GOP hypocrites and their supporters more than anything else. The GOP was interrogating him about a sex scandal even while they were guilty of their own sex scandals, and they condemned him for trying to cover it up they way they lie and deceive to cover up their own sex scandals, so honestly, they impeached him because he was behaving like a republican.
Chiggers. Stay out of swamps and tall grass for starters.I lived in Arkansas for 8 years and was never once chigger bit although everyone talked about them.
Granny...Thank you so much. I'm much relieved to hear what your experience has been. Thinking now that I understand why the guy that lives down there duct tapes his pants to his boots. He's up on a mountain in the woods. No matter..I'll do as you said and wear tight cuffs. Egads! If it isn't one thing.... :))
I can think of two reasons why every blue-blooded Democrat should fight to bring back the draft:1)It will engage people in politics again. I can assure you that if there were a draft army today, there would be riots in the streets against the Bush administration.2) If it is done properly, i.e. no one gets to escape service, but it is easy to serve in civilian service, such as the American Legion (but run by the government), it will provide a great resource to build goodwill around the world, and to perform social services within the US. Engaging people in politics, bringing kids out of their safe suburban coccoons into direct contact with those in need and thereby focussing the agenda on social problems within the US and around the world. Doesn't sound bad to me.Of course, Rangel probably just wanted to make the point that the US army is overstretched and needs relief. But that is one thing that a draft army will not necessarily provide.
Greets to the webmaster of this wonderful site. Keep working. Thank you.»
Nice! Where you get this guestbook? I want the same script.. Awesome content. thankyou.»
Great site lots of usefull infomation here.»
I find some information here.
Post a Comment