Go to the website below and type in S89 or HR163 in the "Bill Number" section on the top left. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
I wonder why nobody is talking about it?? Let see, do any of you blind and the brainwashed have children between 18-26?? I certainly hope you are just as eager, ideological, and passionate about upcoming wars when these 2 bills become law.
Before any of you vote this election, think of and visualize this one picture right before you enter the voting booth. Don't worry its nothing hard(I don't expect hard thinking out of most of you).
Picture kissing your boy or girl between 18-26 right before they are being deployed into a hotzone. Imagine that little boy or girl in camafoulage waving goodby at you and then imagine you coming back home in the evening and hearing on the evening news how 10 marines were blown shreds close to where your kids are headed. Then see how eager you are about a useless war right when your stomach starts to churn and you want to throw up because you see how those marines were blown up.
Oh and another very important thing to remember!! People like me WILL get a deferment one way or another while your kids will have no out. Trust me, neither myself nor any other priveleged kid will be over there.
Happy warmongering everyone!!!!!
http://thomas.loc.gov/ Don't forget to type in S89 or HR163 in the "Bill Number" section!!!!!
EV, sometimes you make sense, and sometimes you believe too much of the Kerry spin.
Why is no one talking about it? Because these bills have utterly no chance of passing. The Senate version is sponsored by retiring SC Democrat Ernest Hollings. The House version is sponsored by some of the looniest of the loony left (Charlie Rangel; Baghdad Jim McDermott, John "Perjury isn't impeachable Conyers; John Lewis, Fortney Stark, and Neil Abercrombie).
So keep your fantasies where they belong: in your whoremongering/hobbying.
Good f'ing grief. The two bills in question are more than a year old and they have no backing from any rational minded persons. The Senate Bill has no co-sponsors besides its original author, the adle brained idiot, Senator Fritz Hollings (D-Disney). And the House bill, in a 435-person body, has a whopping 14 sponsors including the author, Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York.
Charlie Rangel is of the most partisan Dems in the House. How is he in on the Bush administration's march to war? And how is it that the co-sponsors of this bill are other hardcore Dems like Eleanor Holmes Norton, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Former SNCC leader John Lewis? All Partisan Democrats who opposed the Iraq War. Could it be Democratic scare tactics in an election year? Noooooooooo.
Stop acting stupid, EV.
RLTW
My take on the draft controversy:
1) Dems are using it wisely as a way of personalizing the war...making people but their families behind their pro-war positions.
2) But, its also just a scare tactic. Nobody ever wants a draft. Everyone wants someone else to fight. If I were of draft age, while I'd feel obligated to fight, there is no question I'd be hoping my number didn't come up. So, for the average vote, draft = bad. While a popular war could influence this, I don't think it would do much.
Reality is, maybe a draft is a GOOD THING - keeping the government more honest and making the liberal, international civil rights obsessed suburbanites have some skin in the game. Maybe it would have prevented this war and also hold Bush more accountable moving forward. To me, the Kerry campaign's use of the propoganda is just today's more recent example politicians playing on voter emotion with a total disregard for the true issues.
The final reality for this bill is that the Pentagon, whether under Clinton or Bush, has opposed the reinstatement of the draft for budgetary reasons. There simply isnt enough in the Defense Department's budget to support a draft. That means more uniforms, rifles, bullets, food, benefits, and more full time officers and nco's. Who is going to foot the bill for all this? Rangel?
I truly can't see the resumption of the draft....First, it would be political suicide for either candiate/party....Next, I don't think it's needed, this isn't WWII where there was an enormous need for soliders in Europe & Pacific....Lastly, to mix in draftees alongside the men/women who signed up for the military I think would destroy the morale & subsequently lead to more casualities....
There's no way the draft is coming back......
That analysis is reassuring, except of course to those in the National Guard and Reserve who have been "stopped lossed" and ordered back to Iraq.
Seems to me those bills are both 22 months old.
And they were introduced by Democrats.
Perhaps the purpose was not to reinstitute the draft, rather to have election fodder to try and scare people....kind of like you are attempting to do right now.
Go back to the drawing board EV, this horse is long dead and it's been beaten into the ground.
Sorry but I think you guys are WAY too optimistic. Did you know that until a while ago Kerry's website ADVOCATED forced National Service? The National Guard/Reserves are being stretched to the limit. People seeing this will be VERY reluctant to join in the future. As long as we have an interventionalist foreign policy (which BOTH Kerry and Bush advocate) we will need a draft within a year or so. Remember you read this here first! If you would like to protest the coming draft you have a choice... the link below. (And he wants to eliminate all victimless "crimes" also).
PS: If you don't/won't believe this now then just remeber this post and when the draft passes look up this site. www.lp.org
I do not see how either man can behave any differently at this point. We simply do not have the operational freedom that the world gave us shortly after 9/11/2001. We spent valuable capital by invading Iraq at the time that we did and now have that situation to deal with. The choices are not good. If we pull out Iraq immediately tumbles into anarchy, and our pullout would burn to image in the minds to many two bit terrorist that we cannot take sustained losses without cutting and running - there would be nothing left for them to do but come after use in our homeland on a much larger scale than the acts of mass murder that took place on 9/11/2001. If we stay, we will loose more troops and probaly be required to send tens of thousands more to bring the country under control. It does not appear that there is any other option but to stay in Iraq, now that we are there, and steel ourselves for what staying there will mean in terms of lost troops and monetary expenditures - pulling out without stabalizing the country, in the longterm, will cost far more lives.
Where Mr.Bush and Mr.Kerry seem to differ is on whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, at the time that we invaded. While I feel that we would have ultimately had some role in building a new Iraq, I tend to agree with Mr.Kerry's point on the issue of the timing of and justification for bringing that goal to fruition.