Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Rangel To Reintroduce Draft Bill

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   

www.indymedia.com
Rep. Charles Rangel intends to reintroduce legislation calling for resumption of the draft during the current Congressional term, according to a memo circulated by Bill Galvin of the Center on Conscience and War.

Rangel, it will be recalled, was the author of the notorious HR 163, the "universal" conscription bill that became a political football during the 2004 Presidential campaign. When charges that Bush would reinstate the
draft emerged as a red-hot election issue last October, HR 163 became a liability for the Kerry campaign -- whereupon Rangel's bill was rushed to the floor and summarily voted down by a huge majority. For tactical reasons even the bill's sponsors, including Rangel, voted against it.

With the election over, the way is clear for politicians on both sides of the aisle to get behind the draft, and Rep. Rangel will likely be leading the charge. According to Galvin's memo, CCW officers were told in a Dec. 21 meeting with Rangel's legislative director, Emile Milne, that Rangel will "probably introduce similar legislation" in the 2005 term.


I think it should be noted that Charlie Rangel is an extremely liberal Democrat. You can't always trust Indy Media, but I have no reason myself to doubt Rangel will reintroduce this.

I still don't think there will be a draft.




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
What does Rangel think he's going to accomplish with this? Even he voted against it last term! This is another example of insanity brought on by hatred of Bush.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
oh not this again. the guy who authored that bill is a nut case. it is NEVER going to pass because we don't need a draft. This guy started this during the election to scare people about the war. he even said as much.

what will happen, is some people will see this for exactly what it is, and the other 90% will hear the words draft, senator, and then freak out. i know this because i have to constantly correct the morons at work who tell me, " the draft is back, the president said he was bringing it back, i heard him say that!.." and other nonsensical comments like that. Most people hear 2 or 3 words then start talkin.

i wouldnt worry about a draft. we got plenty of people serving. and we are sooo close to bailing out of iraq. we'll be fine..

[edit on 14-1-2005 by spliff4020]

[edit on 14-1-2005 by spliff4020]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
You know what's ridiculous? There are several people on ATS that fear monger like all hell about the draft because it fits their Bush is a dictator beliefs and agenda. Countless threads get filled with speculation about Bush reinstating the draft. Yet when something is posted that isn't wild speculation about a draft - and in fact is sponsored by a liberal Democrat - not a god damned peep.

Playing partisan politics and ignoring half the story is how we got in the mess we're in - not the President.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Well I tell you what all of you happy war people, we should not worry a thing with this "extremely liberal democrat" bill our "president" very clear said that "it will not be a draft under him"

So what is the big deal? Are you people "worry" that Bush will submit and for get about the "it will not be a draft under him"?

I am not worry at all.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Ummm, no Marg,
The "big deal" is that this is, and has always been, a Democrat initiative, not a Republican, not a Bush Administration, which has been asserted, claimed, and sang from the rafters of ATS before by some anti-Bush members (EastCoastKid, etc.).

That, in effect, is the "big deal."






seekerof

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Well, the crazy democrats can re-introduce whatever they want, Bush is his own man and WOULD NEVER go back on his word to us. Right?

Its up to Bush to tear up this bill. Right? Lets see if he does.
The buck stops with Bush.
If its enacted, it will be Bush's fault and no one elses.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
That is my point Seekerof and Dg, we don't have a thing to worry about, we can trust our president. Right?

He is a man of his word. Right?

So the extremely liberal democrat can puff and huff all he want because our man of his word president will protect your children and my children from the draft. Right?

Bad, bad, bad democrat he is been a bad boy.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
"it will be Bush's fault"....?


Typical rhetoric.
It was put down the first time it was introduced by Rangel, dgtempe.
As such, Rangell is reintroducing it, despite that factoid.
As par, the blame is shifted and or ignored.
His reasoning for re-introducing the bill is dubious at best; dubious on his part and on the part of the Democratic Party.

You can pass the buck all you want, the truth is what it is: It has, is and will always be a Democratic initiative, till proven otherwise.



seekerof



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
That is my point Seekerof and Dg, we don't have a thing to worry about, we can trust our president. Right?

He is a man of his word. Right?

So the extremely liberal democrat can puff and huff all he want because our man of his word president will protect your children and my children from the draft. Right?

Bad, bad, bad democrat he is been a bad boy.


We're supposed to deny ignorance here right? Well Bush is not a man of his words. So...what else is there to say. You are wrong. Sorry!



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

You can pass the buck all you want, the truth is what it is: It has, is and will always be a Democratic initiative, till proven otherwise.
seekerof


But it will be after "our president" last word to have pass or not, or to sign into effect.

So the extremely liberal wants is not what the "president" wants. Right Seekerof?

So is nothing to worry about.


Are you afraid it will go through Seekerof? Are you afraid that our president will go for it? that hatefull extremely liberal will bend Mr. President will to his own?



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
It may be typical rhetoric but its true. Of course, i dont know why the dems are pulling so hard for this, but like i said, the buck stops with Bush.
Its not a Republican modus operendai so no need to worry..yet.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by Seekerof

You can pass the buck all you want, the truth is what it is: It has, is and will always be a Democratic initiative, till proven otherwise.
seekerof


But it will be after "our president" last word to have pass or not, or to sign into effect.

So the extremely liberal wants is not what the "president" wants. Right Seekerof?

So is nothing to worry about.


Are you afraid it will go through Seekerof? Are you afraid that our president will go for it? that hatefull extremely liberal will bend Mr. President will to his own?


This bill won't even get that far, it won't be approved by Congress. This is just an attempt by the democrats to fabricate a crisis to get media attention and hopefully pin their own bad ideas on the President.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
No, Marg, not afraid at all, but it seems that with the amount of past ATS threads on this matter, there are a load of members "worried about it".


Btw, if Democrats are supposed to be against this war in Iraq, why would they feel the need to introduce such a bill to then have it denied, then re-introduce it, eh? Dubious, Marg, dubious.




seekerof



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Well, at least there is enough republicans in congress to prevent it from passing...so, well, if it is passed.....well, not all the blame can be placed on the dems, simply because it was a dem that introduced it right?



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
dawnstar....
Ummm, it seems that when the bill was introduced in 2003, those who voted for it were none other than Democrats, all 14 of them.....thats why.

Now it got reintroduced again.
Dubious.
Why?
Because the bill was denied again, 402 against and 2 for.
It also appears that even Mr. Rangel voted against it:
Rangel votes against own draft measure


He must have learnt well under Mr. Kerry, huh?
"I voted for the bill before I voted against it" type crap.....


Dubious.






seekerof



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Seekerof, IT IS DUBIOUS. I agree with you. Democrats are peacenieks, so it makes me think maybe someone is forcing Rangel's hand...Its not that far fetched...after all, i can just hear the news, 'DRAFT BILL PASSED INTO LAW-BUSH HAS NO ALTERNATIVE'....now that would be a total lie as is the ongoing case anyway. And the Republicans would believe it hook line and sinker.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Seekerof, IT IS DUBIOUS. I agree with you. Democrats are peacenieks, so it makes me think maybe someone is forcing Rangel's hand...Its not that far fetched...after all, i can just hear the news, 'DRAFT BILL PASSED INTO LAW-BUSH HAS NO ALTERNATIVE'....now that would be a total lie as is the ongoing case anyway. And the Republicans would believe it hook line and sinker.


How can one House member pass a law???? This bill will need to get 50% + 1 of both the House and the Senate and then the President's signature to pass. Believe me, it will get none of these.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Well I if some are not worry I am worry I have to say it straight I am afraid of the draft, because my children are on prime draft age, so is a reason why I will be watching this one very carefully and with reason.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
This stuff takes two to tango. The real conservative REPUBLICAN members of the Congress are the ones that are fighting legislation like this, it's public record and I've posted it on ATS before so I'm not going to look it up again, but about 60 Republicans voted against the Intelligence Reform bill. Like ten Democrats did. The quicker some of you realize that this # IS NON-PARTISAN the flippin better.

For as "enlightened" as many of you believe yourselves to be for hating (and it is hatred) Bush and the religious right, you're ignoring 50 percent of the fact for posterities sake (or just because you don't want to change the beliefs you've held your whole life). Republicans are handing the country "over" as much as the #ing Democrats are (that doesn't make it okay, that just makes a lot of you wrong.)

PS - I'm a registered Libertarian. I "stick up" for Bush at times because much of the rhetoric spewed is dangerously ignorant in it's belief that everything that's happening is "Neo-Con" related. I'm not at all a Warhawk, I attened more anti-war rallies in the winter and spring of 2003 than any of you probably did. I'll bet a months pay on that. But damn, some of you need to get a friggin grip.

I still don't think a there will be a draft. This won't make it through the house - thanks to the 60 Republicans earlier stated. Even if it did the crap storm created will be 100 times worse than the Vietnam Era.

How a bill becomes a law:


F. The Bill Becomes A Law - once a bill is signed by the President or his veto is overridden by both houses it becomes a law and is assigned an official number.


I think some of you need to go back to civics class. A bill can be passed without the President's approval. It seems we should get behind the libertarian leaning Republicans in the House rather than look at all conservatives with disdain - they're our only #ing hope right now.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join