Poll: If the Draft is Reinstituted....

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
When is the last time you actually looked at the points of our argument rather than deciding to play the martyr card and take everything personally?

My brother died as a result of Agent Orange in Viet Nam. It hurts, my friend, still. I only brought it up because you implied that I hold a position that intentionally hurts troops.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I did, because that is the way I see it. Your brother's death is indeed tragic and I am sorry for your loss and all that, but you're insisting that I campare apples to ball peen hammers. Your position intentionally hurts the troops. Period.

I've felt the results of war, and it brings me to be rather defensive of our milirary people.

You call my hurt and sorrow "playing a martyr". I wonder why the moderators snip a few angry words, yet allow this sort of gross unkindness to stand.

Perhaps because it sounds like you are playing the martyr. I have no idea otherwise. Again, this is how it appears to me.

I'm ok, but if your heart is that hard, I feel sorry for you.

You have my permission to redirect your pity. I niether need, appreciate, nor acknowledge it.

By the way, I have addressed the points of our argument, but you responded with snotty, childish, hurtful remarks. Grow up.

You addressed nothing. And if by "grow up," you mean "act and think like Pennsylvania Jim," thank you, no. </font>[/QUOTE]You are truly despicable.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by ballfan:
The war on terror is not just against OLB.

The trouble is that we cannot allow a president or anyone else to just say it's about whatever he wants it to be at the moment. Killing people is a serious thing.

 

[Hardsheller]

I find it amazing that folks willingly ignore the facts about Iraq.

1. The WHOLE WORLD thought Saddam had WMD's.
2. SADDAM financially supported Terrorism in Israel.
3. SADDAM harbored Terrorists - A most wanted Terrorist lived in Baghdad.
4. And Look what we found when we got to IRAQ - An unending supply of TARGETS wanting to meet their 70 virgins.

Seems to me the War on Terror is right on the money as George W. sees it.

 

[ballfan]

Originally posted by poncho:
The first site is the official page for the "Project For A New American Century" I believe. Catchie name huh?

Basically it's a plan for American world hegemony defined at... Dictionary.com

Some background info. Lot's here. Check out the neo con bios.

www.thefourreasons.org

Trotskyism.

Trotskyitous

On your the fourreasons site did you catch the moveon.org link.

You need to find some credible sources.

 

[ballfan]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ballfan:
The war on terror is not just against OLB.

The trouble is that we cannot allow a president or anyone else to just say it's about whatever he wants it to be at the moment. Killing people is a serious thing. </font>[/QUOTE]The President has been consistent about the war on terror.

Killing is a serious thing. Just ask the people who were on the US Cole or at the embassies in Kenya.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother Hardsheller -- Preach it!

 

[Hardsheller]

Ballfan,

You're talking a language these folks just don't understand.

The only thing they understand is Michael A. Peroutka's "ISOLATIONISM - No Troops on Any Foreign Soil Policy - No Matter what they do to America and American Interests" and John F. Kerry's "Why War when you can Windsail Policy - Why can't we just all get along and let Kofi tell us all what to do"

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:

1. The WHOLE WORLD thought Saddam had WMD's.

Not true, unless you distort the meaning and significance of the term "WMD".

2. SADDAM financially supported Terrorism in Israel.

Could be. If so, maybe we should have urged Israel to use some of the tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons that we have given them. I never thought that it was the duty of Americans to die for Israel.

3. SADDAM harbored Terrorists - A most wanted Terrorist lived in Baghdad.

19 of them lived in the USA. I wouldn't say, though, that we "harbored terrorists".

4. And Look what we found when we got to IRAQ - An unending supply of TARGETS wanting to meet their 70 virgins.

Yes, there are plenty of targets, if that's what your call people.

Seems to me the War on Terror is right on the money as George W. sees it.

How true.

 

[LadyEagle]

19 of them lived in the USA. I wouldn't say, though, that we "harbored terrorists".

I would. And we still do. Free World Trade and Porous Borders are worth more than Homeland Security.

 

[ballfan]

quote:
3. SADDAM harbored Terrorists - A most wanted Terrorist lived in Baghdad.


19 of them lived in the USA. I wouldn't say, though, that we "harbored terrorists".

I find it hard to believe you wrote that Jim. There's no need to try to paint Saddam as uninvolved. He was.

 

[ballfan]

Originally posted by LadyEagle:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />19 of them lived in the USA. I wouldn't say, though, that we "harbored terrorists".

I would. And we still do. Free World Trade and Porous Borders are worth more than Homeland Security.

</font>[/QUOTE]Harbored as in how?

The US is a unique country in the world. The terrorists just took advantage of it. To claim that we harbor terrorists is showing a lack of full understanding.

 

[ballfan]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Ballfan,

You're talking a language these folks just don't understand.

The only thing they understand is Michael A. Peroutka's "ISOLATIONISM - No Troops on Any Foreign Soil Policy - No Matter what they do to America and American Interests" and John F. Kerry's "Why War when you can Windsail Policy - Why can't we just all get along and let Kofi tell us all what to do"

I think they understand better than you might imagine. A change of a little over 500 votes last time and we would have a President Gore now. It probably won't be that close this time but suppose it is and they manage to make the difference between Bush and Kerry so that Kerry wins. Effectively they will have elected Kerry. The next four years will be years in which they are culpable. What they are doing now is CYA but it won't work. They think they're standing in front of a one way mirror. What they don't realize it that its just clear glass and we can see them clearly.

 

[JGrubbs]

If I didn't vote for Peroutka, I wouldn't be voting for Bush or Kerry, so how will I have elected Kerry? Your logic makes no sense!

I choose to vote for what is right, not out of fear of Kerry or fear of terrorist.

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hardsheller:

1. The WHOLE WORLD thought Saddam had WMD's.

Not true, unless you distort the meaning and significance of the term "WMD".

2. SADDAM financially supported Terrorism in Israel.

Could be. If so, maybe we should have urged Israel to use some of the tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons that we have given them. I never thought that it was the duty of Americans to die for Israel.

3. SADDAM harbored Terrorists - A most wanted Terrorist lived in Baghdad.

19 of them lived in the USA. I wouldn't say, though, that we "harbored terrorists".

4. And Look what we found when we got to IRAQ - An unending supply of TARGETS wanting to meet their 70 virgins.

Yes, there are plenty of targets, if that's what your call people.

Seems to me the War on Terror is right on the money as George W. sees it.

How true. </font>[/QUOTE]The idea that you think #1 is wrong is because you have changed the definition of "thought" and "Believed."

Targets is exactly what I call people who want to kill my grandkids.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
When is the last time you actually looked at the points of our argument rather than deciding to play the martyr card and take everything personally?

My brother died as a result of Agent Orange in Viet Nam. It hurts, my friend, still. I only brought it up because you implied that I hold a position that intentionally hurts troops.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I did, because that is the way I see it. Your brother's death is indeed tragic and I am sorry for your loss and all that, but you're insisting that I campare apples to ball peen hammers. Your position intentionally hurts the troops. Period.

I've felt the results of war, and it brings me to be rather defensive of our milirary people.

You call my hurt and sorrow "playing a martyr". I wonder why the moderators snip a few angry words, yet allow this sort of gross unkindness to stand.

Perhaps because it sounds like you are playing the martyr. I have no idea otherwise. Again, this is how it appears to me.

I'm ok, but if your heart is that hard, I feel sorry for you.

You have my permission to redirect your pity. I niether need, appreciate, nor acknowledge it.

By the way, I have addressed the points of our argument, but you responded with snotty, childish, hurtful remarks. Grow up.

You addressed nothing. And if by "grow up," you mean "act and think like Pennsylvania Jim," thank you, no. </font>[/QUOTE]You are truly despicable. </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you. From you, that's the highest of compliments.

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ballfan:
The Neville Chamberlain theory?

No, a lot closer to George Washington. </font>[/QUOTE]Medved asked Uncle Peroutka about George Washington's use of the commander-in-chief's option to wage war without Congressional approval. Uncle Peroutka refused to answer or comment. When Medved pointed out that the Presidents had used that power 200 times since Washington, Uncle Peroutka challenged the number but produced no facts or other comments on the issue. Now we are told that Peroutka would be just like Washington but we imagine that Washington would be cleaned up so that all military authority would rest with the Congress the way Uncle Peroutka wants it. The President would carry the sword in vain, so to speak.

The Constitution Party and should be ashamed of themselves for trying to scare the American people with the talk of a draft (but you know that they are not). Of course, they got the idea from scary Kerry and Charles Rangel--Rangel would be a perfect fit for the Constitution Party.

If the Democrats and the Constitution Party do not want to live under the majority will to fight in Iraq, there is a simple option for them: if in the military, get out; if not in the military, stay out.

 

[Mark S]

There is ONE congressman that wants the Draft and that is Democratic Congressman Charlie Wrangle from New York, He wrote the legislation and it was soundly defeated. 3/4's of the house I think it was voted against it, So when KERRY says that Bush is going to restart the Draft remember the legislation was written by Democrat Charlie Wrangle. And the republicans in the House all voted against it.

 

[JGrubbs]

Rangle never wanted the draft, Rangle did author the bill, but he also voted against it, and encouraged everyone else to do the same. There were only two Democrats who voted for it. The rest of the House voted against it.

He introduced this bill to get both Bush and Kerry talking about the issue. We can only continue the invasions of other nations for so long before they have to re-instate the draft to supply the miliatry.

 

[ballfan]

Originally posted by JGrubbs:
Rangle never wanted the draft, Rangle did author the bill, but he also voted against it, and encouraged everyone else to do the same. There were only two Democrats who voted for it. The rest of the House voted against it.

He introduced this bill to get both Bush and Kerry talking about the issue. We can only continue the invasions of other nations for so long before they have to re-instate the draft to supply the miliatry.

I've seen Rangle on TV but I don't remember him ever saying anything that made any sense. This is just more of the same. If he really wants a discussion on the draft he should start by laying out his own plans. Then anyone who wants to join in can do so.

 

[JGrubbs]

I agree, I wouldn't trust Rangle with my goldfish, I was simply pointing out that Rangle doesn't support the draft, he was simply using this bill to put the draft in the spotlight. It worked!