The American Mind

Why Not Bring Back the Draft?…

…

If by “closer” you mean “one Representative wants to see it happen but is in a minority of one in Congress,” then yes, we’re closer.

Rangel isn’t just “one Representative.” He will soon be the powerful chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. The guy’s a serious pol. If was goofy Rep. Dennis “Department of Peace” Kucinich I wouldn’t take it seriously. But Rangel is far from being a backbenchers.

I know he’s gonna be the chairman, but Pelosi’s already said reinstating the draft isn’t anywhere close to on the table. No other reps have said anything about supporting this, right? I don’t think anyone has to worry about a draft. I know you probably don’t trust Democrats, but come on. If you think they didn’t learn anything watching the Republicans fervently pursue agendas that made no sense and alienated the public (hi Terri Schaivo), then you really are jaded (in which case, welcome aboard the cynic train! We have fun and play Twister and drink lots of Leine’s).

Then I must have been on that train a while. Leine’s rules!

Hey DJ,

Are you complaining that Conesrvatives are doing to Democrats what Liberals did to Republicans?

I know you and your liberal ilk love to assign 2 separate rules on Republicans and Democrats (where Democrats are allowed to be as horrible a representative as possible without consequence, while Republicans have to have their throat slit if they deviate from the party line just once).

“Are you complaining that Conesrvatives are doing to Democrats what Liberals did to Republicans?”

Huh? Um, no.

DJ wrote,

“Huh? Um, no. ”

Huh? Um, yes.

For you to suggest that Democrats have learned “something” by basically doing exactly what Republicans did then there’s definitely 2 sets of rules going on.

I suppose even if the Democrat’s Offed someone, you’d claim that the Democrats are just “Learning from the mistakes that others made.” Or something else as crazy.

Charlie Rangel’s Draft Legislation is a clear sign that the Democrats are not on the same page.

At least with Terry Schiavo, the Republican party was unified much more so than with Charlie’s Draft Resolution.

I’d rather have a part unified on an issue, than splintered in serveral different directions.

You’re talking nonsense. Could you please read what i wrote without projecting what you think my opinions are onto what i wrote?

If anything my point was that the Democrats are NOT going to do what the Republicans did, which was persue an agenda that nauseated and alienated the majority of Americans. Please go back and read again.

Also,

“I’d rather have a part unified on an issue, than splintered in serveral different directions.”

That’s typical. “See, the Republican-controlled federal government stuck their nose into a family’s private business, but at least they were unified!”

Someday, Jeff, your motivation to post things on a blog will be something other than “i like to read my own words and make any excuse to talk shit about liberals and Democrats whenever possible.” Maybe then we’ll be able to have an actual intelligent discussion, like i’m able to have with Sean, Matt, and the other sane conservatives who post here.

In any event, Rangel’s rationale for wanting to bring back the draft (rich government beaurocrats will be unwilling to start unnecessary wars if their kids are likely to be drafted to fight them) is flawed, because how many Republican chickenhawks do we have in Washington that like to start wars but got deferments or otherwise got out of serving themselves? Heck, if Papa Bush managed to keep Dubya out of ‘Nam by getting him a spot “in the National Guard” where he “served with distinction,” then whose to say Dubya wouldn’t be able to do the same for Jenna and Babs?

Dj wrote,

“You’re talking nonsense. Could you please read what i wrote without projecting what you think my opinions are onto what i wrote?”

If you believe that I have done that, then you have no clue what you wrote.

Or perhaps you have no idea or undertanding of what I wrote (which is more plausible seeing as you are a liberal).

“Maybe then we’ll be able to have an actual intelligent discussion, like i’m able to have with Sean, Matt, and the other sane conservatives who post here.”

An intelligent discussion?

I don’t see you conducting any kind of intelligent discussion unless posting,

“Nope. I disagree. You are wrong. Not true.”

Somehow counts as an intelligent discussion.

You make no effort to actually understand what other people post/write about.

You just shoot what they say down and move on to the next thread. When someone is “fed up” with you not bothering to take the time to understand anyone, you say, “I am too busy.”

You call that an intelligent discussion? Since when?

Since pigs can fly?

“In any event, Rangel’s rationale for wanting to bring back the draft (rich government beaurocrats will be unwilling to start unnecessary wars if their kids are likely to be drafted to fight them) is flawed, because how many Republican chickenhawks do we have in Washington t”

Uhm.

You don’t explain why you feel Charlie Rangle’s position is flawed by lambasting the Republican party.

A “real discussion” on Charlie Rangel should be about Charlie Rangel and that’s it.

One of the absolute toughest issues in talking with a Liberal is that whenever they’re political party does something wrong, they can’t even discuss the issue!

And this business about “Chickenhawks” also makes little sense.

It’s like you have a barrometer set for who is justified in having an opinion and who is not.

President Bush has left much of the foreign policy startegic thinking to the U.S. Army Generals and other Active Military officials and the Pentagon.

There’s no correlation between your opinion of the National Guard service he had and wheter or not President Bush as Commander in Chief has the right to take this country to war or not.

President Bush was elected TWICE and has certainly earned the position and ability to lead this country.

President Bush has never done something like “DODGE THE DRAFT” that former President Clinton did.

President Clinton never served in the military at any point in his life.

And while he was Commander in Chief, there weren’t any Republican voters and certainly not even myself willing to politicize war efforts.

The problem with you (DJ)

is that you don’t “Discuss things.”

When it is clearly obvious that either you or a representative of your ideology (and I don’t even mean political party, I mean a representative of your ideology) does something poorly, you have to always feel like it is the Republican Party that is the reason for why your representative did something wrong.

Any statement you make that says,

“Charlie Rangel’s rationale for wanting to bring back the draft (rich government beaurocrats will be unwilling to start unnecessary wars if their kids are likely to be drafted to fight them) is flawed, because how many Republican chickenhawks ..”

See?

How’s that an intelligent discussion?

You launch into Republican Attack mode without even finishing your sentence about Charlie Rangel yet.

It is as if you want to say that there’s a Republican “Chickenhawk” conspiracy making Charlie Rangel interested in the Draft.

T’would be nice if you explained why you thought Charlie’s stance was flawed,

beyond just your verbal assault on the Republican Party which has nothing to do with Charlie Rangel’s reasoning.

Hrm, i have time at work today, so let’s dissect this.

“I don’t see you conducting any kind of intelligent discussion unless posting,

“Nope. I disagree. You are wrong. Not true.””

Then you’re just selectively reading. Hell, i’ve AGREED with Sean plenty of times in here, and said as much. Plus, i take the time to actually explain my position, and not always with some sort of cheap shot toward conservatives (since, shock shock, i don’t think conservatism is a bad thing, just different from where i lean most of the time. Different does not = bad). You, on the other hand, seem driven in every post you make to just slam liberals. This is easy to do in a faceless internet forum where you can personally project your opinions of a faceless mass of nebulous “liberals” onto a faceless poster like myself. But it’s disingenuous and serves to erode your already limited credibility.

A word of advice: just try ONCE to make a post on this blog that isn’t a thinly-veiled cheap shot at Democrats or liberals. I’m not sure you can do it, as your reply under the “straightjacket” post demonstrates.

Sure, sometimes i take cheap shots too, but i don’t do it all the time.

“You don’t explain why you feel Charlie Rangle’s position is flawed by lambasting the Republican party.

A “real discussion” on Charlie Rangel should be about Charlie Rangel and that’s it.”

Fine. I have no problem with expanding my point to say that his logic is flawed because if there’s a draft, RICH and INFLUENTIAL people will always find a way to keep their kids out of serving in wartime, be they Republican or Democrat.

It just so happens that there are more war vets serving in the Democratic party right now that the Republican party, John McCain notwithstanding. Here’s a question for you, Jeff–why is it that a vast majority of Iraq war vets that ran for political office this year ran as Democrats?

“One of the absolute toughest issues in talking with a Liberal is that whenever they’re political party does something wrong, they can’t even discuss the issue!”

And yet, i don’t have a political party. I’m an independent. I voted Libertarian in 1996, Green in 2000. Hell, i urged my parents to vote for Bush Sr. in 1988, but that was when i was young and dumb.

“There’s no correlation between your opinion of the National Guard service he had and wheter or not President Bush as Commander in Chief has the right to take this country to war or not.”

Sure there is. The architects of the Iraq war and the majority of Republicans who have supported the war–Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Delay, Rove, etc. etc. did not serve in the military. It’s a staggering number of Republican war-mongers who didn’t.

And one might argue that lack of service does not necessarily disqualify you from being able to command the military, but! Then why did Republicans make such a big stink about Clinton’s not serving?

Your statement:

“President Bush has never done something like “DODGE THE DRAFT” that former President Clinton did.”

Betrays just that–Clinton’s lack of service was a HUGE sticking point in 1992. In fact, Bush’s lack of service in ‘Nam wouldn’t have been an issue had the Repubs not gone around the corner on that issue with Clinton in ‘92. I don’t excuse Clinton for dodging the draft (although, to be honest, i would have done the exact same thing, but i also have no aspirations to run for office), but it’s dishonest to criticize him for draft dodging while not criticizing people on the right for avoiding service, even if their methods were more “conventional.”

Prattle on all you want about how Bush “served” in the Guard during ‘Nam, but Clinton didn’t have a rich daddy pulling strings for him to get him into the Guard specifically to avoid ‘Nam, like Bush did. On the surface, it may look perfectly acceptable, but some of us like to dig deeper below the surface (and Rathergate notwithstanding, many many people still doubt whether or not Bush was actually serving when he says he served).

“And while he was Commander in Chief, there weren’t any Republican voters and certainly not even myself willing to politicize war efforts.”

That’s just a flat-out lie. Republicans went to town criticizing Kosovo, Clinton’s bombing of Iraq, and just about every other military operation he led, and all for political points. Here:

Dick Armey, 1998: “”The suspicion some people have about the president’s motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment. After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons.”

Trent Lott, on the bombing of Iraq in 1998: “”I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.”

And, of course, my favorite one, re: Kosovo:

George W. Bush: “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

Sure, you say there weren’t any Republican VOTERS willing to do that, but do you have proof? Because i have proof that plenty of Republican politicians sure as hell did.

By the way, your criticising me for occasionally being too busy to respond to a post (or in your usual case, three or four posts in a row) is really funny. Yes, Jeff, you got me. I’m really sorry that sometimes i am working at my job, playing music with my band, or hanging out with my girlfriend, and that sometimes these things take priority over arguing on the internet. I’m very very sorry.