transfer from Rumors Board - Stevie and Lindsey for Kerry

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Rangel isn't the only Democrat supporting this. And I know Rangel and co. aren't in charge of hte military.

However, it annoys me when people are posting "Bush wants to reinstate the draft" when the sponsors of the legislation are Democrats.

The bill that they introduced is dead. The Bush administration are the ones pushing for the draft boards, not the Dems.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The bill that they introduced is dead. The Bush administration are the ones pushing for the draft boards, not the Dems.

Someone posted the link bushdraft.com as evidence that he wants to reinstate the draft, and they had those bills as "proof." That's what chapped my arse. I don't care if the bills are dead or not, it's false information.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Someone posted the link bushdraft.com as evidence that he wants to reinstate the draft, and they had those bills as "proof." That's what chapped my arse. I don't care if the bills are dead or not, it's false information.

No, I said "This site also has excellent links to document their position." What's false about that?

The rest of the page reads:

"Articles about the recruitment drive for draft board workers can be found here

A Copy of the DefendAmerica page

Bush drives to fill draft board positions
Draft Board Vacancies Prompt Questions of a Draft
Is the Draft on the Drawing Boards?
Talk of a Draft Grows
Will US Bring Back the Draft
Selective Service Notice Spurs Worries about Draft
US Raises Spectre of Conscription
Will Bush Reinstate The Draft?
Appeal for Draft Board Volunteers Revives Memories of Vietnam"

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No, I said "This site also has excellent links to document their position." What's false about that?

I wasn't referring to you in my post. I meant the bushdraft site linked to the Democrat-sponsored Senate and House bills, when the site, as I understood it, was documenting Bush's action to bring back the draft. It was not Bush who began the legislation, so I felt that information was misleading. Sorry I didn't articulate my point more clearly.

And the page I was looking at was this: http://www.bushdraft.com/proof.html

That's where I got the Senate/House stuff. I apologize if that wasn't the page you were referring to.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
I wasn't referring to you in my post. I meant the bushdraft site linked to the Democrat-sponsored Senate and House bills, when the site, as I understood it, was documenting Bush's action to bring back the draft. It was not Bush who began the legislation, so I felt that information was misleading. Sorry I didn't articulate my point more clearly.

Since when does a president introduce legislation?

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Since when does a president introduce legislation?

Never. I was just saying that the site doesn't need to use Democrat introduced bills as evidence that Bush is wanting to reinstate the draft. It's confusing and misleading. And you pointed out that they bills are dead, and the site says they are "currently in Congress." I just don't get why those proposed bills are even ON the site. They don't belong there.

This got waaay too confusing.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Never. I was just saying that the site doesn't need to use Democrat introduced bills as evidence that Bush is wanting to reinstate the draft. It's confusing and misleading. And you pointed out that they bills are dead, and the site says are "currently in Congress." I just don't get why those proposed bills are even ON the site.

It points out on the site further down in the referneces that the bill is dead. They are on there in reference to this statement: "There are also CURRENTLY bills in the Senate and in the house that, if passed, will make military service a requirement for all men, women (including college students) between the age of 18 and 25."

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
It points out on the site further down in the referneces that the bill is dead. They are on there in reference to this statement: "There are also CURRENTLY bills in the Senate and in the house that, if passed, will make military service a requirement for all men, women (including college students) between the age of 18 and 25."

I don't see that on the page I am viewing. But my whole point is that they shouldn't have been on there in the first place, which obviously, I didn't state very well.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
I don't see that on the page I am viewing. But my whole point is that they shouldn't have been on there in the first place, which obviously, I didn't state very well.

If you look at when the bill was introduced, about a year ago, then I think the motive is clear. The bill states that ALL men and WOMEN ages 18-25 should be eleigible for military service. What was getting ready to happen a year ago? Who has two daughters that would be eligible?
In short, while Rangel continues to support this, I believe the others introduced it to send a message to the Oval Ofiice that, if you're going to start a war, then you'd better be willing to send everybody's kids, including your own. JMO.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by jwd
As much as liberal America hates W., it's got me thinking, he has to be doing something right.

If by "doing something right," you mean lying to American citizens (and the world), getting our young men and women killed while carrying out his family's vendettas, and denying American citizens their right to marry whomever they choose... among countless other things... then yep, he's doing a bang-up job!

But you know I love ya, Joe!

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
If you look at when the bill was introduced, about a year ago, then I think the motive is clear. The bill states that ALL men and WOMEN ages 18-25 should be eleigible for military service. What was getting ready to happen a year ago? Who has two daughters that would be eligible?
In short, while Rangel continues to support this, I believe the others introduced it to send a message to the Oval Ofiice that, if you're going to start a war, then you'd better be willing to send everybody's kids, including your own. JMO.

Touche.

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

If by "doing something right," you mean lying to American citizens (and the world), getting our young men and women killed while carrying out his family's vendettas, and denying American citizens their right to marry whomever they choose... among countless other things... then yep, he's doing a bang-up job!

But you know I love ya, Joe!

Brian, I just don't agree with your assessment of the President. As for your first point about the President "lying", I would suggest this read:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...sprj.nirq.kay/

"It was the consensus among the intelligence agencies that Iraq had such weapons that led Bush to conclude that it posed an imminent threat that justified the U.S.-led invasion, Kay said.

"I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people," he said.

"We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration," Kay said.

END QUOTE

And to think that the President of the U.S would send in American soldiers, risking their lives, for a personal vendetta is just incredulous to me. I'm sorry, I just cannot buy that one. You'll never convince me that a president of this country, whether he's Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative would be THAT cold hearted.

As far as denying American citizens their right to marry, you need to look a little further than Bush. It seems to be a very popular opinion held by most citizens in this country. Clinton himself signed the "Defense Of Marriage Act" AND John Kerry does not believe in gay marriage either.

I myself am a very strong supporter of gay "civil unions".

As for the last comment in your post, right back at ya!



Joe

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by jwd
Brian, I just don't agree with your assessment of the President.

And to think that the President of the U.S would send in American soldiers, risking their lives, for a personal vendetta is just incredulous to me. I'm sorry, I just cannot buy that one. You'll never convince me that a president of this country, whether he's Republican, Democrat, liberal or conservative would be THAT cold hearted.

As far as denying American citizens their right to marry, you need to look a little further than Bush. It seems to be a very popular opinion held by most citizens in this country. Clinton himself signed the "Defense Of Marriage Act" AND John Kerry does not believe in gay marriage either.

I myself am a very strong supporter of gay "civil unions".

I'm still not sure how anyone believes the "Powers That Be" still thought they'd find WMDs there.
Doesn't anyone remember the months and months the UN inspectors searched Iraq, and came up with absolutely nothing... before the current administration insisted they did indeed have them, and we must send troops in?

So do we believe that we were lied to, or merely that they're just that foolish?
Either way, it's not a very flattering commentary on the current presidency.

I also realize that gay marriages aren't "widely" supported... and I was extremely disappointed that Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage act. But I think Bush's "save marriage" battle-cries are even more offensive, because he's making himself look like some sort of hero, who's going to save the sacred institution of marriage from all of the deviant, immoral, homosexual sinners, who are out to pervert it and make a mockery of it.
And, quite honestly, that offends me.

If they wish to only allow "civil unions," so be it... I can live with that. But I don't appreciate being told that what I am, is something that should be equated with perversion and sin... and something that the good, upstanding, moralled citizens of the USofA need protecting from.

This affects my future and the futures of many of my friends, and I'm sorry, but this is just a subject I can't be dispassionate about.

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

I'm still not sure how anyone believes the "Powers That Be" still thought they'd find WMDs there.
Doesn't anyone remember the months and months the UN inspectors searched Iraq, and came up with absolutely nothing... before the current administration insisted they did indeed have them, and we must send troops in?

I do remember that there was a general feeling that the inspectors were being given the run-around. Everyone believed Saddam had them, and if he didn't have them any longer, he wasn't forthcoming on what he did with them. He provided no documentation or proof of what happened to them. Once again, the intelligence indicated that he had them. At least that's the way I'm taking what's being reported in the news now.

Johnny Stew:

But I think Bush's "save marriage" battle-cries are even more offensive, because he's making himself look like some sort of hero, who's going to save the sacred institution of marriage from all of the deviant, immoral, homosexual sinners, who are out to pervert it and make a mockery of it.

Actually I think it's his job to uphold the laws of the land as president. Like it or not the "Defense Of Marriage Act" is a law signed by William Jefferson Clinton himself. I don't believe George Bush has ever said anything to give one the impression that he believes homosexuals are sinners, deviant, and immoral. But I definitely understand how you would feel with the likes of Pat Robertson close by. I do feel your pain.


Joe

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by jwd
As much as liberal America hates W., it's got me thinking, he has to be doing something right.


Joe

Name it, funny guy.