Well, I guess I should’ve expected responses like this in the pit.
I will point out that you have totally avoided the actual issue, as it does not matter, at all, who sponsored the bill. You have picked a single quote and are nitpicking in order to prove I don’t know what I’m talking about.
However. As I have already pointed out, the same people finance/control both the democrats and the republicans. So, yes, Bush and his neocons. Or are you going to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about and the major corporations who support both parties are really magical fairies and elves that I’ve dreamed up?
As for the supposed argument of left-leaning democrats (have they even existed in the last 20 years?) wanting to reinstate the draft to make it less likely, that about as convincing as those who voted to support the war in Iraq to make that less likely.
Now, do you want to get back onto the topic of keep nitpicking?
And yeah, knee jerking… funny, I get all riled up when someone wants to take control of my life and spend it in a war without my consent. I’m just wacky that way.
Then why start the thread by waving around a red flag embroidered with “George Bush” and “neocon”? Why not have said “Two bills have been introduced in Congress to reinstate the draft!”? Being shrill about it - especially given the facts - just makes you look bad.
What, responses based on research and facts? Yeah, you should have.
I will point out that you have totally failed to provide an actual issue, as your support of your position is based entirely of false claims.
Your argument of “they’re all the same!” smells of Third Degree Backstepping.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Fine. Make a solid connection between the 7 named sponsors of the bills and Dubya via major corporations. Here are their names: Rangal, McDermott, Conyers, Lewis (Georgia), Stark, Abercrombie, and Hollings.
:rolleyes:
Got an argument in there somewhere?
You seem to be assuming you were on a topic of substance. I’d point to presidebt’s post pointing out that the named bills don’t even involve a draft.
It is extremely unlikely that the Pentagon wants anything to do with spending its hard-earned taxpayer dollars on short-term recruits. It is too expensive to train someone who goes home just as they are starting to become useful. And even if you are pretty choosy, you still end up with a huge army poorly suited for any of the things that the US military does today. Unless we need to station them on the borders of Canada and Mexico to ward off invasion a 2 million strong army of barely trained conscripts just ain’t worth the effort.
As Presidebt noted, it sounds like we are talking conscription, rather than a draft. Somehow I doubt that in an era of relatively high unemployment there will be much political support for enlisting eighteen to twentysomethings as cheap labor. Cheap labor just isn’t that hard to find. In a boom economy, there might be support for it but as of right now, I doubt it.
Because it’s a throw-away-phrase.
Becuase it doesn’t matter who sponsors it
and because the same people control both parties so it is the neocons
(the people who currently hold the power to start wars and set enviornmental/scientific/economic/etc pollicy)
who are at fault.
My apologies, FinnAgain, I see the connection now between the ad hominem charge and the fact that this is not something put forth by Bush and/or neocons. I thought you were saying the bill itself did not imply a draft. Again, I apologize.
Well, hell, I misinterpreted once again. And again, I owe you an apology. I’m sorry. I’ll bow out of the conversation until such time as I can pay attention.
I have nothing to add, except that you will never again see the institution of a military draft within the United States. The topic itself is a President-killer. If Bush came forward with his endorsement of such a bill, it would be tantamount to handing the Democrats the keys to the White House doors.
In order for a draft to even be a feasible idea, we would need almost unanimous public support of military action, something that we can and never will see again.
Facts and research which have nothing to do with the issue.
There are two bills.
This is fact.
They want something which is abhorent.
This is fact.
You want to draw the discussion off into other directions.
This is fact.
And just becuase you do it in the name of proving your intellectual prowess or fact finding abilities or whatever is irrelevant.
I will in turn point out that I’ve provided the links to the bills themselves. If this isn’t support of my position, I don’t know what is. Oh, do you mean support of the irrelevant statements which you’re nitpicking? Fine, forget I said them, and now concentrate on the issue please.
The argument of they’re all the same might just come from the fact that over the lats 20 years the democrats and the republicans have been adopting amazingly similar agendas and positions, that they DNC and GOP are financed by the same groups, etc…
I don’t have to make a connection between the seven named sponsors. Nor major corporations as the records exist and are quite clear that the same group of major coroporations support both the democrats and republicans as a whole. Again, this is apart from the issue of a draft, feel free to nitpick this if you really want, but please at least have the courage to say “I’m going to post a response now that has nothing to do with the issue at hand”
The argument in there, as I’m sure you picked out, is that the rational is both unconvincing and irrelevant. They want to institute the draft for whatever reason.
The bills don’t involve a draft? Pray tell what do they involve? This I’d really like to hear.
And, anybody who does not object to having their life confiscated is a fool. It’s not ‘knee jerkin’ to value your own life. That’s ridiculous. Try again.
If you want to argue that it’s conscription and not a draft ~shrugs~ the fact still stands that they would claim the lives of each and every citizen of a certain age and then choose who had combat duty.
That’s hilarious. Can I use that as a sig? I wouldn’t want people to come to the conclusion that you have any interest in the truth.
There is a difference between a draft and mandatory national service. Ask your neighborhood German to explain if you can’t be bothered to use Google.
Honestly, you have done absolutely zero research. You have absolutely no idea what those two bills are calling for (hint: not a draft). You have absolutely no idea what the intention for bringing those bills to committee are, nor have you expressed an interest in finding out.
Intellectual dishonesty really isn’t something you should flaunt.
And I wouldn’t want people to come to the conclusion that you have reading comprehension skills.
Notice, ‘that have nothing to do with the issue’
You can point out bush’s political connections, or the dems, but the bills are still there.
All you’ve done is throw up smoke.
So please, quote away.
Reading comprehension is something you might want to look into.
If they can call ALL people of a certain age to serve, and then choose SOME of them for military service, that sounds an awful lot like drafting.
But I’m very glad that you’ve been sitting over my shoulder and watching the research I’ve done. Anything else your crystal ball tells you?
I don’t think you need to worry much about the draft in any case, FinnAgain. I really don’t think the Army would want you.
Call it 4-F, or a Section 8, or the Group W bench, or pulling a Private Pyle, whatever. You’re clearly not a good fit for a military unit.
I’m a Navy veteran, and it’s the squirelly motherfuckers like you we really used to worry about. We had one guy have a nervous breakdown right in our Combat Information Center. Just started crying and cursing and couldn’t work anymore. And we weren’t even in a war or an exercise or anything demanding at the time. We were just in transit to Norfolk.
In the military, you depend on your unit, your shipmates, your buddies. You need somebody halfway dependable, who can follow directions. You can’t even follow the argument going on around you.
You would be a disgrace to any uniform you would wear. So don’t worry about any draft. Just sit on your ass and leave the fighting to men and women that can handle it.
wow, not only did presidebt quote the facts that you seem unable to find, but you too refrenced them in nitpicking my argument, and then you go on to deny them and tell me to shut the fuck up.
you’re right, I’ve definitely got some substandard work goin’ on in my noggin.
And I’m supposed to be offended that a band of hired thugs wouldn’t want me to go and murder some folks in the name of national interests? Or die in the name of corporate profits?
Yeah, I’m disgraceful, I don’t like indoctrination, being controled, following orders, or having my life spent on someone else’s cause. Go figure.
And yes, I’ve followed the argument, I’ve just had little patience for nitpicking and things off the main topic, which is the draft (oh, I"m sorry, which is making all people of a certain age serve the federal government and some of them go to war against their will)
