S 89 - Introduced on the Senate floor by Hollings, (D-SC) on Jan. 7, 2003
HR 163 - Introduced to the Ouse by Reps: Rangel, McDermott, Conyers, Lewis, Stark and Abercrombie (All D's as far as I can find) also on Jan 7, 2003.
Both items referred to theri respective Armed Service committees for further study
So, as far as I can see, these were introduced 16 months ago by DEMOCRATS!
I recall the furor over Rangel's introduction.
Before you go pointing fingers at the "admin" for this one, you better do more investigative work.
If you don't want your kids going to endless wars over the neo-CONS danderous pipe dreams, vote this admin out of office! I knew this was going to happen, and it's is just the beginning. These SOB's refuse to tell the truth about anything and they need to be stopped. Rest assured they have other "plans" cooked up in their heads already that will only come out if they are re-elected.
Please circulate this story to as many people as possible, specially ones who have young children. I wonder if the children of politicians are exempt??
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg
S 89 - Introduced on the Senate floor by Hollings, (D-SC) on Jan. 7, 2003
HR 163 - Introduced to the Ouse by Reps: Rangel, McDermott, Conyers, Lewis, Stark and Abercrombie (All D's as far as I can find) also on Jan 7, 2003.
Both items referred to theri respective Armed Service committees for further study
So, as far as I can see, these were introduced 16 months ago by DEMOCRATS!
I recall the furor over Rangel's introduction.
Before you go pointing fingers at the "admin" for this one, you better do more investigative work.
Since Im not a democrat or republican I don't care which party members introduced it. Rangall put the bill into circulation, not because he supports the war, rather to raise awareness that if needless wars like Iraq are going to be fought then we need a draft to maintain troop levels combat ready to fight on multiple fronts.
The restrictions on dodging this one are much stronger for a purpose. If reinstated, then the phony warmongers would realize thier kids might have to go to the battlefields and risk their lives as well, and hence might put a stop to the neo-CON and right wing warmongering. Also if the entire public faced the possibility of their kids being forced to go to war, they might actually be more vigilant and not buy any more mushroom cloud, saddam was behind 9-11 bull shit the next time the neo-CONS push their pipe dreams on the world again.
Atleast the democrats did one thing right by pushing this bill. The public just might wake up and question the bull shit much more quickly and in more depth the next time.
And besides, the Iraq was has created a situation where practically the draft may be necessary anyway. I just hope the stupid democratic party raises this issue during the elections so more people see whats coming if WMD Bush is re-elected.
and Kerry has called on us to send MORE troops to Iraq! Remember, it was democrats who got us into Vietnam (JFK) and kept us there (LBJ)! It was a Republican who finally god us out (Nixon)!! If you don't want a draft, vote FOR the administration!!
Read my post above in the same thread. The reason the democrats are pushing the draft is to wake the people, not because they love the Iraq war. Actually its one of the smartest political moves by the democratic party, which usually can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
The prospect of a draft might just cause the people to question the excrement that comes out of this admin. I guarantee you there would be many many many more so called "appeasers" and people "aiding and giving comfort to the enemy" if their own children would be facing death.
I bet any amount of money if there was the possibility of Jenna/Barbar Bush in uniform or the kids of some other "patriotic" draftdodging warmongers this war would never have happened.
it's a losing strategy for the left. Anyone who voted for this measure, right or left, would quickly find themselves in the private sector come the next election. The real proof to this being a bad strategy is the fact this debate is already about dead and never really got started.
Look at the sponsors. Then look at the fact that the military is meeting all recruitment quotas.
It's nice to see that you anti-Semites have gotten past the unsophisticated "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Now, you can camouflage your anti-Semitism as mere rebuttals to those nasty "neo-CONS."
Now regarding anti-Semites - are they anything like Gay bashers. You know, hating someone else cause they're different ?
between hating someone for what they are born as, and despising someone for the bad choices that they make.
As for "Gay bashers," they should be punished for assault and battery just like anyone else. One supposes, however, that the homophiliacs want enhanced punishments for so-called "hate crimes," and therefore want to criminalize thought with which they disagree. So, to answer the question, anti-Semites are nothing like "Gay bashers" in their motivations; depending upon their actions, they are sometimes like anti-Semites in their actions (i.e., Hitler's Germany, where homosexuals were rounded up and murdered in death camps, just like the Jews).
You far Lefties can justify it anyway you want, but sexual behavior is a choice, just like a lot of other social pathologies. The far Left's greatest desire is to relieve individuals of the burdens of their bad choices, while punishing achievers for and depriving them of the benefits of their good ones.
and you far Righties want ``to relieve individuals of the burdens'' to MAKE CHOICES.
But to get back you your assertion that Gay bashers are not motivated by hate - I guess you are right. They are motivated by fear, ignorance and insecurity. And insecurity to the highest order - Who else would care about what another individual does in their bedroom. Or are you so pissed/scared that they may kiss and hold hands in the street - potentially influencing your child ?????? (Surely, with Gay bashers as fathers this is not possible - being such manly examples).
BTW, I believe ``Gay bashers'' is not only a term used for those you assault Gays physically but for anyone who hates (despises) an individual solely because they are Gay.
Quite simply, they are no worse than Rumsfeld or Bush or Cheney. All of them are culpable.
And, BTW, I'm Jewish. I will admit to being an anti-homophobe, however, despite the fact that I enjoy sex with women as much as the next person on this forum.
Perhaps. But isn't it interesting how those who attack them throw out the code word "neo-con" with such abandon.
BTW, I'm glad to hear you are an "anti-homophobe." So you are against those who fear fags. Aren't we all? Of course, "homophobe" is a label thrown out by homophiliacs to belittle those who oppose the gay political agenda, without actually addressing their arguments.
Pathetic.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html
The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton:
Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
What started as a theory in 1997 was now on its way to becoming official U.S. policy.
-----------------------------------
Signers of PNACs original 1997 mission statement who currently serve in government include:
Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense)
Paul Wolfowitz (Deputy Secretary of Defense)
Peter W. Rodman (Assistant Secretary of Defense)
Dick Cheney (Vice President)
Elliott Abrams (National Security Council)
Steve Forbes (Forbes Magazine)
Zalmay Khalilzad (special envoy for Afghanistan)
Jeb Bush (Governor of Florida and brother of President George W. Bush)
SOURCE: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
other links
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0%2C12271%2C936393%2C00.html
http://shockingelk.com/text/neoconservative/
Are you kidding. So, we have hurt the feelings of the ``Not so particularly fond of a Gay individual'' (NSPFGI) crowd by calling them ``homophobes'', ''Gay basher'', .... Is NSPFGI a better term ?
It is not that NSPFGI's oppose the Gay plitical agenda that is our concern. It is that NSPFGI's oppose the existence of Gays.
Do you think that Gays would need a political agenda if they weren't so discriminated against ?
I guess the Civil Rights Movement was just the Black political agenda ?
But then again, you are a man who is against abortion but whose stance may change if you were the one having the baby (of course, not possible [???] but why the not so sure attitude).
I wholeheartedly agree ...
Pathetic.
and it was he whom I was specificacally referring to in my prior post. What's pathetic is that you failed to grasp the obvious.