Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

123 | 124 | 125

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

NOV 19, 2006 03:57 PM

You thought this was going to be a brand new era of Liberalism.

Finally the scourge of the Repugs defeated, Bushitler cowering complicity in the wings, Rummy gone, Bela Pelosi on the throne...surely it was only a matter of days before C*****mas was banned, K-Mart was forced to donate 90% of its profits to single parent whales in Nicaragua and the troops were withdrawn from Iraq and taught literacy skills by John Kerry.

Then it went weird. First off, Joe "Cut n Run" Murtha, was swiftboated by the main stream media. Now - stranger still - Democrat congressman Charlie Rangel, wants to force you into the army.

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.
Advertisement

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.


Excellent reasoning, Charlie. If only America had the draft, Noriega would still be in power, Al Qaeda would still be sitting pretty in Afghanistan, Saddam & his psychopathic sons would still be feeding dissidents into meat mincers and playing "chase the lady" with Hans Blix. Halcyon days.

So how will this affect you?

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.


Surely he can't be serious...perhaps it's the stress of leadership getting to the old boy. Perhaps eeevil Ann Coulter dropped some acid in his tea. I'm afraid not. Cheerful Charlie has tried this on before.

In 2003, Rangel proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. It was defeated 402-2 the following year. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress."


Someone fill me in. Surely this can't actually happen? Surely this is just political sarcasm? If not, well I'm sure you'll all look really sexy in khaki and (if I remember correctly) SG offers free subscriptions to military folk.

ten-HUP!

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

NOV 19, 2006 04:03 PM

You're a little late. This story already posted.

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

NOV 19, 2006 04:05 PM

TheGringo said:
You're a little late. This story already posted.



boards is boards and wires is wires

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

NOV 19, 2006 04:08 PM

Good point.

So what do you think the chance of this even going to a bill is? I really don't see it going any further than a news story.

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

NOV 19, 2006 04:12 PM

TheGringo said:
Good point.

So what do you think the chance of this even going to a bill is? I really don't see it going any further than a news story.



Well this is what I was wondering. It's not as though Rangel is some obscure nutball from Please Ya Self, CA. He's a senior party nutball.

It's normally more conservative folk who bang on about the draft, but the last time he tried this on (under a Republican-lead congress) it got totally anihilated.

It surely stands no chance (and neither should Rangel if the Dems want to hang onto any credibility).

Not2Bright

Not2Bright

Sumter, SC
July 2006

NOV 19, 2006 04:16 PM

Free for military? Huh? I missed that memo.

The draft is the biggest mistake a government could make. It will NEVER pass. Canada's population would spike. They'd end up building a fence to keep us out.

scorp17yh

scorp17yh

Brookings, OR
November 2004

NOV 19, 2006 04:16 PM

A mandatory male/female draft for ALL would keep the United States from becoming involved in all the unwinable/insane/illegal wars it keeps starting.

destijl01

destijl01

Kent, OH
January 2006

NOV 19, 2006 04:21 PM

scorp17yh said:
A mandatory male/female draft for ALL would keep the United States from becoming involved in all the unwinable/insane/illegal wars it keeps starting.



...and then YOU'D be in the military...i guess youd prefer it that way?

pascalpp

pascalpp

Brooklyn, NY
January 2004

NOV 19, 2006 04:23 PM

Yeah this is a non-starter. But it's sweet meat for tripe-writers like uptight.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

NOV 19, 2006 04:23 PM

Yeah I mean imagine if we had a draft during the 60's and 70's we might have fought an unpopular war in a place like oh i don't know Vietnam.......

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

NOV 19, 2006 04:27 PM

Colinism said:
Yeah I mean imagine if we had a draft during the 60's and 70's we might have fought an unpopular war in a place like oh i don't know Vietnam.......



Specious. The draft in 60's and 70's had so many exemptions and deferrals, it does not come close to the idea of universal military service.

I can practically guarantee you that this country would have a different approach to war if all of its sons and daughters had to enlist - start out as privates and move their way up the chain of command.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

NOV 19, 2006 04:28 PM

Haven't been paying attention to the last 3 years of U.S. politics, eh? Isn't this a good thing, considering that the war in Iraq is central to the "War on Terror"? Oh, wait, it's not, 'cause it means the chickenhawks might have to stand up in fight for the war they love so much - I mean from a position other than from behind their keyboards.

David_Aames

David_Aames

I'm lost
June 2006

NOV 19, 2006 04:30 PM

If this happens, i'll see you all in Canada. wink

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

NOV 19, 2006 04:31 PM

NickFaust said:

Colinism said:
Yeah I mean imagine if we had a draft during the 60's and 70's we might have fought an unpopular war in a place like oh i don't know Vietnam.......



Specious. The draft in 60's and 70's had so many exemptions and deferrals, it does not come close to the idea of univerisal military service.

I can practically guarentee you that this country would have a different appraoch to war if all of its sons and daughters had to enlist - start out as privates and move their way up the chain of command.



Right, except this bill creates the same conditions. The draft does not necessarily compel military service, but service to the country. So all those sons and daughters of politicians wouldjust end up doing community service. smile Sorry nick but the comparison is sound.

UpTight

UpTight

I'm lost
December 2003

NOV 19, 2006 04:31 PM

I say "bring back the birch"

_kungfoo_

_kungfoo_

Los Angeles, CA
April 2005

NOV 19, 2006 04:35 PM

NickFaust said:
I can practically guarantee you that this country would have a different approach to war if all of its sons and daughters had to enlist - start out as privates and move their way up the chain of command.



Oh yeah, that was going to be my point exactly. I made a comment earlier about Rumsfeld and Cheney and their constant remarks about how "well" things are going over there. It's all about how you measure progress. If you remove the death toll as a means of measure, things are going fucking beautiful over there.

If Cheney lesbian daughter was over there, things would be a lot different in the military right now (i.e., withdrawn from Iraq if we had even gone in and gays allowed to serve openly).

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

NOV 19, 2006 04:36 PM

My favorite aspect of this "article," which was posted by a "politics editor," is that uptight didn't pay enough attention to what he was cutting and pasting from LGF to eliminate the "ADVERTISEMENT" from the text. My second favorite thing about said "article" is that uptight took a backhanded shot at military service at the end of the cut and paste job - almost as if he thinks that going off to Iraq is a stupid thing to do and he's breathing a sigh of relief for never having to take part in the violence he fetishizes.

darwinsjoke

darwinsjoke

Virginia Beach, VA
July 2003

NOV 19, 2006 04:37 PM

I'm all in favor of mandatory military service for every chickenhawk that supports the occupation of Iraq from the comfort of their cheeto stained computer desk in their parents' basement. Support Operation Yellow Elephant, help a college republican enlist today!

FYI UpAlbion - it's Rep. John Murtha not Joe Murtha.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

NOV 19, 2006 04:37 PM

KUNGFOO said:

NickFaust said:
I can practically guarantee you that this country would have a different approach to war if all of its sons and daughters had to enlist - start out as privates and move their way up the chain of command.



Oh yeah, that was going to be my point exactly. I made a comment earlier about Rumsfeld and Cheney and their constant remarks about how "well" things are going over there. It's all about how you measure progress. If you remove the death toll as a means of measure, things are going fucking beautiful over there.

If Cheney lesbian daughter was over there, things would be a lot different in the military right now (i.e., withdrawn from Iraq if we had even gone in and gays allowed to serve openly).



Doubtful, you all forget thatthese people would secretly get their sons and daughters posted to safe areas stateside. You all assume that they would somehow be in the front lines fighting. This is simply not the case.

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

NOV 19, 2006 04:39 PM

you know a man is insecure when his avatar contains a convincing message.
wink

YAWG

YAWG

Victoria, BC
November 2003

NOV 19, 2006 04:40 PM

I like the bit about single parent whales in Nicaragua.

NickFaust

NickFaust

USA
April 2004

NOV 19, 2006 04:41 PM

Colinism said:

KUNGFOO said:

NickFaust said:
I can practically guarantee you that this country would have a different approach to war if all of its sons and daughters had to enlist - start out as privates and move their way up the chain of command.



Oh yeah, that was going to be my point exactly. I made a comment earlier about Rumsfeld and Cheney and their constant remarks about how "well" things are going over there. It's all about how you measure progress. If you remove the death toll as a means of measure, things are going fucking beautiful over there.

If Cheney lesbian daughter was over there, things would be a lot different in the military right now (i.e., withdrawn from Iraq if we had even gone in and gays allowed to serve openly).



Doubtful, you all forget thatthese people would secretly get their sons and daughters posted to safe areas stateside. You all assume that they would somehow be in the front lines fighting. This is simply not the case.



I don't question this. People will always work for exemptions and use their influence - however if evey family in the US had a dog in this hunt, our attitudes toward it would be wayyy different.

Westley

Westley

Vatican City
April 2004

NOV 19, 2006 04:43 PM

uptight said:
I say

Advertisement

"bring back the birch"


Fixed it for you.

Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

NOV 19, 2006 04:46 PM

NickFaust said:

Colinism said:

KUNGFOO said:

NickFaust said:
I can practically guarantee you that this country would have a different approach to war if all of its sons and daughters had to enlist - start out as privates and move their way up the chain of command.



Oh yeah, that was going to be my point exactly. I made a comment earlier about Rumsfeld and Cheney and their constant remarks about how "well" things are going over there. It's all about how you measure progress. If you remove the death toll as a means of measure, things are going fucking beautiful over there.

If Cheney lesbian daughter was over there, things would be a lot different in the military right now (i.e., withdrawn from Iraq if we had even gone in and gays allowed to serve openly).



Doubtful, you all forget thatthese people would secretly get their sons and daughters posted to safe areas stateside. You all assume that they would somehow be in the front lines fighting. This is simply not the case.



I don't question this. People will always work for exemptions and use their influence - however if evey family in the US had a dog in this hunt, our attitudes toward it would be wayyy different.



Your assuming they would be but until it happens we will never know.

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

NOV 19, 2006 04:47 PM

Colinism said:

KUNGFOO said:

NickFaust said:
I can practically guarantee you that this country would have a different approach to war if all of its sons and daughters had to enlist - start out as privates and move their way up the chain of command.



Oh yeah, that was going to be my point exactly. I made a comment earlier about Rumsfeld and Cheney and their constant remarks about how "well" things are going over there. It's all about how you measure progress. If you remove the death toll as a means of measure, things are going fucking beautiful over there.

If Cheney lesbian daughter was over there, things would be a lot different in the military right now (i.e., withdrawn from Iraq if we had even gone in and gays allowed to serve openly).



Doubtful, you all forget thatthese people would secretly get their sons and daughters posted to safe areas stateside. You all assume that they would somehow be in the front lines fighting. This is simply not the case.


this is true. W's unit was made up of sons of the powerful and other high profile types.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next