Dem. Rangel Calling for Military Draft

[Balta1701]

Yea, it's always different, and somehow it always comes back to something caused by Bush. Thanks for making my point for me.

 

I seem to recall that Clinton, Kerry, and others in the Democratic Party voted FOR the war...

 

oh, but Bush lied. /ROLLY

 

They had the same damn evidence shoved under all of their noses, and chose to commit to war. OH WAIT, it's different. It always is.

Man, that's one hell of a flipping of topics.

 

You complain that Rangel is bringing this out as a way of giving the finger to Bush. I don't really dispute that, whether or not the merits of the proposal are worthy or not, he's certainly bringing this up exactly right now because it's 2 weeks after the election, Iraq's still a mess, and Rangel's using the specter of a draft to make a political point before the new Congress comes into session, and probably piss Bush off a little bit.

 

Yet on the other hand, when Bush renominates guys like Bolten, Tomlinson, and half a dozen judges, all of whom the Senate has already rejected, right after the election, and I try to point out to you that basically the day the Senate was called for the Dems Bush was already flipping the Dems the middle finger, suddenly you jump onto bashing Kerry and Clinton and others for being almost as ungodly wrong as Bush was about the war.

 

Let me make this simple; there is no great military reason for Charlie Rangel to be calling for a draft right now. The draft is only needed if we decide to put more troops into Iraq. It is done entirely to score political points and to give a big "FU". If you have a problem with that, then you must have a problem with Mr. Bush giving repeated FU's to the new majority in terms of firing off every possible nominee he could to the Senate before the Dems take power, most of whom were already rejected by the current Senate.

[kapkomet]

Man, that's one hell of a flipping of topics.

 

You complain that Rangel is bringing this out as a way of giving the finger to Bush. I don't really dispute that, whether or not the merits of the proposal are worthy or not, he's certainly bringing this up exactly right now because it's 2 weeks after the election, Iraq's still a mess, and Rangel's using the specter of a draft to make a political point before the new Congress comes into session, and probably piss Bush off a little bit.

 

Yet on the other hand, when Bush renominates guys like Bolten, Tomlinson, and half a dozen judges, all of whom the Senate has already rejected, right after the election, and I try to point out to you that basically the day the Senate was called for the Dems Bush was already flipping the Dems the middle finger, suddenly you jump onto bashing Kerry and Clinton and others for being almost as ungodly wrong as Bush was about the war.

 

Let me make this simple; there is no great military reason for Charlie Rangel to be calling for a draft right now. The draft is only needed if we decide to put more troops into Iraq. It is done entirely to score political points and to give a big "FU". If you have a problem with that, then you must have a problem with Mr. Bush giving repeated FU's to the new majority in terms of firing off every possible nominee he could to the Senate before the Dems take power, most of whom were already rejected by the current Senate.

To tell you the truth, I haven't had a hell of a lot of time to follow anything going on outside of the snippets posted on here (sad, this is my news source). I haven't seen the pissing offs of Bush (which, he does all the time, which is another subject entirely... and frankly he deserved to get his ass kicked this election cycle).

 

Bolton should get nominated. The dude has done a hell of a job, and even a lot of Dems agree with that - but the ONLY reason he won't get a vote is because the Deomcrats are bing f***tards about the whole damn thing. And that's pathetic.

 

As far as the judges go, I have no idea what the hell is going on with that. But for once, give them the vote up or down. But there's too much yellow piss being thrown for that to happen, apparently.

[EvilMonkey]

Yet on the other hand, when Bush renominates guys like Bolten, Tomlinson, and half a dozen judges, all of whom the Senate has already rejected, right after the election, and I try to point out to you that basically the day the Senate was called for the Dems Bush was already flipping the Dems the middle finger, suddenly you jump onto bashing Kerry and Clinton and others for being almost as ungodly wrong as Bush was about the war.

I fail to see how Bush nominating the people he wants to fill open positions is 'flipping off the Dems'. Should he nominate someone that Rangle wants instead? No, he nominates who HE wants.Then the Senate gets to do their job. And if they block people simply because they 'don't like him', or that they are too mean, well, that will just come back to bite them come next election time. That's called putting them on record, and if theyhave nothing to be ashamed of, then vote no. If Bush's picks are truely out there,then it will come back to haunt theGOP instead.

[Rex Kickass]

It's not who he's nominating, it's when he nominates them.

 

Nominating them in the lame duck session is an f-you to the incoming Dem majority - because even the GOP led Senate isn't going to act on most of them.

 

Although I think that John Bolton, should get an up or down vote in January, and he should get the nod this time because his work has shown some considerable talent that wasn't there. But remember, he DID get an up or down vote in his committee. They voted down originally.

 

A fair amount of these judicial nominations didn't have the votes to get out of committee in this congress either - and again, a party line vote for the GOP got them out onto the floor. If you recall, there hasn't been an active filibuster against federal judge nominations in over a year. Why? Because the GOP led Senate threatened to do away with the filibuster if it was used in just that kind of situation. Remember talks of the nuclear option?

 

The judges that Bush is renominating this time around didn't have enough support in his own party to get through committee. As it is, George Bush has gotten a higher percentage of his bench appointees through than any other president in the last thirty years. About one out of three of Clinton's appointees were blocked by a GOP majority congress after 1994 as far as I can recall. Of course, as you seem so fond of saying, I'm sure it's different this time.

 

It's always different.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

What's so bad about it? Because you don't want to go if called?

 

 

No. As Ive stated on here many, many, MANY times.........

 

 

-The military doesn't want it. The military wants professional soldiers who want to be there, not a bunch of malcontents who don't want to be there and will do nothing but cause problems.

 

-The public doesn't want it. It's hard enough to get people to join the military of their own free will, if you institute a draft and there is no corresponding national emergency then there is a potential to cause a great deal of civil unrest.

 

The draft was a good idea during World War 2 but in these modern times it is an idea who's time has come and gone. A professional, all-volunteer force remains the right answer for defending the country.

[kapkomet]

It is different, Rex. Because the Democrats prmoised to LEAD instead of being a roadblock. But they just can't do it.

 

I'm not talking about the judges because I don't know, but I am talking about Bolton. As I said earlier, the Democrats admit (most of them who aren't cowtowing to the hard left) admit that Bolton has proved himself worthy of the job. But they refuse to compromise to get him a vote.

 

Besides that, the key vote on Bolton at the time was Chafee, and he's a Democrat anyway who stayed Republican to get $$$$$ for Rhode Island anyway, which is another hypcritical irony, but that's another thread.

 

The man has done well, even by your accounts, for the most part. But nooooooooo, he can't get a vote all because of prior partisan bickering, and it's baloney.

 

But WAIT! The Democrats are the new party of prinicpals and ideas. They won't play political posturing horses*** games because they're DIFFERENT! Nevermind. No they're not, but according to a lot of you, it's all justified, hence the tag 'it's always different'.

 

I won't dive the thread off again. Back to the 'draft' attention.

[southsider2k5]

How exactly does manditory service work with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" if I am a selfish SOB who could give a crap less about anyone else? (hypothetically speaking of course.) I don't see how manditory service to your country jives with our constitutional freedoms at all.

[NorthSideSox72]

How exactly does manditory service work with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" if I am a selfish SOB who could give a crap less about anyone else? (hypothetically speaking of course.) I don't see how manditory service to your country jives with our constitutional freedoms at all.

That is the hard part. I have a lot of respect for the view as Mr. Genius put it, that its not the government's place. Frankly, I think any sort of mandatory service would probably require a Constitutional Amendment. And that won't happen. But if it did, honestly, I'd be OK with it - for me, or my kids.

[EvilMonkey]

Of course, as you seem so fond of saying, I'm sure it's different this time.

 

It's always different.

I think you have me confused with Kap on that line. It doesn't matter when he nominates them,. If congress is open for business, then business should be done, not hold off on everything until the new guys get there. Otherwise, shut it down until the new people arrive. He is the pres, he gets to nominate, they get to vote.

[Soxy]

How exactly does manditory service work with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" if I am a selfish SOB who could give a crap less about anyone else? (hypothetically speaking of course.) I don't see how manditory service to your country jives with our constitutional freedoms at all.

And that's pretty much where the nation is, why risk my happiness by doing something (temporary) for my country; a country that will allow me to live (relatively) happily ever after.

 

I agree with the previous posters (including Nuke) that said the draft for purely military means would be a disaster. But I think that the option of civil service is really a great choice. I can't imagine that people in Germany or Switzerland or anywhere else where civil service is mandatory really think their quality of life is in the crapper. Probably they're just less selfish than us and are willing to make a sacrifice for their country. I'm not excepting myself from the selfish comment, when I had the opportunity to do something cool and great like teach for america, I turned it down and I'll regret that decision for a long time.

[southsider2k5]

Let me just be clear that I do believe in doing public service. I am active volunteer in my hometown. I believe people should VOLUNTEER for public service projects. I just don't see that as being something we can REQUIRE people to do, even if it is for the greater good.

[Rex Kickass]

It is different, Rex. Because the Democrats prmoised to LEAD instead of being a roadblock. But they just can't do it.

 

I'm not talking about the judges because I don't know, but I am talking about Bolton. As I said earlier, the Democrats admit (most of them who aren't cowtowing to the hard left) admit that Bolton has proved himself worthy of the job. But they refuse to compromise to get him a vote.

 

Besides that, the key vote on Bolton at the time was Chafee, and he's a Democrat anyway who stayed Republican to get $$$$$ for Rhode Island anyway, which is another hypcritical irony, but that's another thread.

 

The man has done well, even by your accounts, for the most part. But nooooooooo, he can't get a vote all because of prior partisan bickering, and it's baloney.

 

But WAIT! The Democrats are the new party of prinicpals and ideas. They won't play political posturing horses*** games because they're DIFFERENT! Nevermind. No they're not, but according to a lot of you, it's all justified, hence the tag 'it's always different'.

 

I won't dive the thread off again. Back to the 'draft' attention.

 

Kap, if the President thinks he has the support to get Bolton reconfirmed - why doesn't he renominate him when the new Congress takes up its seats in January? Didn't Bill Frist even say that he wouldn't let most of these renominations take the floor in the remainder of this session? Because it was inappropriate? It's pretty hard to be a roadblock majority two months before you are a majority - so I guess what you're accusing the Democrats of is pretty impressive. We have no idea what a Democratic controlled Senate will or will not block in terms of nominations. I can tell you that in 2001 and 2002, the Dems kept something like three judicial nominations from Confirmation when they had control of the Senate last. So, if this is any indication of what will happen in 2007 and 2008 - George Bush ought to be happy, he'll still get most of what he wants. But not necessarily all of it.

 

Because the role of the Senate is to advise and consent on nominations. The President's perogative is to nominate as he pleases - not be a rubber stamp.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

And that's pretty much where the nation is, why risk my happiness by doing something (temporary) for my country; a country that will allow me to live (relatively) happily ever after.

 

I agree with the previous posters (including Nuke) that said the draft for purely military means would be a disaster. But I think that the option of civil service is really a great choice. I can't imagine that people in Germany or Switzerland or anywhere else where civil service is mandatory really think their quality of life is in the crapper. Probably they're just less selfish than us and are willing to make a sacrifice for their country. I'm not excepting myself from the selfish comment, when I had the opportunity to do something cool and great like teach for america, I turned it down and I'll regret that decision for a long time.

 

 

Im all for the concept of some sort of National Service program that was mandatory. Military service could be an option under such a program with those who dont want to put on the uniform given a chance to do something else they find more tasteful.

[kapkomet]

Kap, if the President thinks he has the support to get Bolton reconfirmed - why doesn't he renominate him when the new Congress takes up its seats in January? Didn't Bill Frist even say that he wouldn't let most of these renominations take the floor in the remainder of this session? Because it was inappropriate? It's pretty hard to be a roadblock majority two months before you are a majority - so I guess what you're accusing the Democrats of is pretty impressive. We have no idea what a Democratic controlled Senate will or will not block in terms of nominations. I can tell you that in 2001 and 2002, the Dems kept something like three judicial nominations from Confirmation when they had control of the Senate last. So, if this is any indication of what will happen in 2007 and 2008 - George Bush ought to be happy, he'll still get most of what he wants. But not necessarily all of it.

 

Because the role of the Senate is to advise and consent on nominations. The President's perogative is to nominate as he pleases - not be a rubber stamp.

You're right Rex. It's just that when I hear Bolton being railroaded for political hackery (both sides, honestly), I think it stinks.

 

Like I said, I don't know enough about the judges that are up to even comment.

[Damen]

Yea, it's always different, and somehow it always comes back to something caused by Bush. Thanks for making my point for me.

 

I seem to recall that Clinton, Kerry, and others in the Democratic Party voted FOR the war...

 

oh, but Bush lied. /ROLLY

 

They didn't vote for the war, actually, but I'm straining to see how that's even related to the discussion right now.

 

 

It is different, Rex. Because the Democrats prmoised to LEAD instead of being a roadblock. But they just can't do it.

 

I'm not talking about the judges because I don't know, but I am talking about Bolton. As I said earlier, the Democrats admit (most of them who aren't cowtowing to the hard left) admit that Bolton has proved himself worthy of the job. But they refuse to compromise to get him a vote.

 

Besides that, the key vote on Bolton at the time was Chafee, and he's a Democrat anyway who stayed Republican to get $$$$$ for Rhode Island anyway, which is another hypcritical irony, but that's another thread.

 

The man has done well, even by your accounts, for the most part. But nooooooooo, he can't get a vote all because of prior partisan bickering, and it's baloney.

 

But WAIT! The Democrats are the new party of prinicpals and ideas. They won't play political posturing horses*** games because they're DIFFERENT! Nevermind. No they're not, but according to a lot of you, it's all justified, hence the tag 'it's always different'.

 

I won't dive the thread off again. Back to the 'draft' attention.

 

Seriously? Find me some quotes of any Democrats who think Bolton, who is viewed as a joke by just about everyone in the world outside of the rightwing blogs and the Bush administration, has "proved himself worthy".

 

George Bush has a 31% approval rating. Clearly, America is tired of George Bush's politics and ideas. So the Democrats are only acting on their principals and ideas when they prevent an unstable and ineffective joke of an ambassador from embarrasing us further.

[Balta1701]

They didn't vote for the war, actually, but I'm straining to see how that's even related to the discussion right now.

If the Democrats in Congress didn't realize that giving George W. Bush a blank check for the use of force in Iraq was going to wind up with the U.S. invading Iraq, then they're idiots.

[Rex Kickass]

They knowingly voted for the war. Whether they knew that we were going in for the right reasons is up for debate.

[kapkomet]

Seriously? Find me some quotes of any Democrats who think Bolton, who is viewed as a joke by just about everyone in the world outside of the rightwing blogs and the Bush administration, has "proved himself worthy".

Of course you won't find that... DUH.

 

Although, some without absolute blinders (tsk tsk) on even around here have acknowledged that he has done a fair job at the UN for the most part. Pefect? Far from it, but better then many had hoped.

[NorthSideSox72]

Of course you won't find that... DUH.

 

Although, some without absolute blinders (tsk tsk) on even around here have acknowledged that he has done a fair job at the UN for the most part. Pefect? Far from it, but better then many had hoped.

Put me in that camp. I have to say, he has been a lot better than I expected him to be.

[Damen]

Of course you won't find that... DUH.

 

Although, some without absolute blinders (tsk tsk) on even around here have acknowledged that he has done a fair job at the UN for the most part. Pefect? Far from it, but better then many had hoped.

 

Hmmm...isn't that what you said earlier though. And its awfully presumptious to assume one needs "absolute blinders (tsk tsk)" to believe he has been an embarrasment at the UN when its been Republicans who have killed his nomination each time. Really, I'd like to know what he has done to merit a "fair" report card, because I can go on quite a long list of why I think he's a joke.

 

Although I'll be honest, with that mustache, and with the way Republicans have been lately, I am a little suprised he hasn't been caught bearing Bacardi, condoms, and a jar of play-doh while expecting to meet a 13 year old Thai boy, only to run into Stone Phillips and the Dateline crew. So, if we're going by that standard, then yeah, I guess he has been a little better than expected.

[Rex Kickass]

Actually his leadership in helping to quell the Israeli/Hesbollah conflict in Beirut exceeded that of his superiors.

 

He did a much better job than I would have thought given the poor guidance our administration provided in our policy.

[kapkomet]

Hmmm...isn't that what you said earlier though. And its awfully presumptious to assume one needs "absolute blinders (tsk tsk)" to believe he has been an embarrasment at the UN when its been Republicans who have killed his nomination each time. Really, I'd like to know what he has done to merit a "fair" report card, because I can go on quite a long list of why I think he's a joke.

 

Although I'll be honest, with that mustache, and with the way Republicans have been lately, I am a little suprised he hasn't been caught bearing Bacardi, condoms, and a jar of play-doh while expecting to meet a 13 year old Thai boy, only to run into Stone Phillips and the Dateline crew. So, if we're going by that standard, then yeah, I guess he has been a little better than expected.

You just ruined anything you could ever say here in the future with this single post. Now I can just discount anything you say totally. Thanks for clarifying.

[sox4lifeinPA]

You just ruined anything you could ever say here in the future with this single post. Now I can just discount anything you say totally. Thanks for clarifying.

 

 

to be fair that was only his 130th post... give him time before you make that judgment. I mean, we still let Mike post, don't we?

[Texsox]

i don't think the government should have authoratitive power to forcefully mandate service to the coutry unless there is a relevant and immediate threat to the survival of the country.

 

"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

 

I believe that with the benefits of living in this country should come a debt. Like others in this thread, as long as there is a non-military option, like Americorps, I would be in favor of it. We have too many people who believe they can take and take without giving back. One of the saddest changes in my lifetime is "community service" is no longer a noble thing, something to be proud of, instead it is a punishment handed out for misdemeanor crimes.

[southsider2k5]

"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

 

I believe that with the benefits of living in this country should come a debt. Like others in this thread, as long as there is a non-military option, like Americorps, I would be in favor of it. We have too many people who believe they can take and take without giving back. One of the saddest changes in my lifetime is "community service" is no longer a noble thing, something to be proud of, instead it is a punishment handed out for misdemeanor crimes.

 

I couldn't disagree with you more. Each person should feel a debt of service, but there should be zero obligation to serve, period. Constitutionally we are under zero obligation to give anyone else, anything. Morally and ethically everyone should want to serve, but in reality, there is no good reason to compell anyone to do anything they don't want to do. If they want to be a lazy POS watching Springer all day long, that is the constitutional given right, and I would protect that until the day that I die.