It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by enthuziazm
I have dual citizenship. American/Canadian.
mrsdudara
you can check govtrak
Originally posted by AndrewTB
I hope it passes.
Originally posted by mrsdudara
you can check govtrak it takes 1-2 days to post though. Should be on there tomorow I would think.
Altria Group: $24,000
$24,000 to Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
Goldman Sachs: $24,000
$24,000 to Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
New York Life Insurance: $18,500
$18,500 to Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
Hispanic Broadcasting Corp: $16,250S
$16,250 to Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
Piper Rudnick LLP: $14,700
Did i blame Bush? Go back and read where i said a Democrat wants to pass this draft. It is however, up to the Bush administration to pass it, should it pass.
Originally posted by centurion1211
As some have wisely posted, this is simply a political ploy - by a democrat - to create fear among the American public.
Unfortunately, many of the posters on this thread - including its author - seem to be playing right into Rangel's hands and going with the fear mongering. A couple have even blamed Bush for this, even though this bill is always and clearly created by a democrat congressman for the dual purposes of embarrassing the current administration and scaring the public.
Originally posted by dgtempe
Did i blame Bush? Go back and read where i said a Democrat wants to pass this draft. It is however, up to the Bush administration to pass it, should it pass.
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Like, on this page:
www.govtrack.us...
Look who gave money toward this bill:
Altria Group: $24,000
$24,000 to Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
Goldman Sachs: $24,000
$24,000 to Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
New York Life Insurance: $18,500
$18,500 to Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
Hispanic Broadcasting Corp: $16,250S
$16,250 to Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]
Piper Rudnick LLP: $14,700
Quite an interesting group.
Under Paulson's leadership, Goldman Sachs has become one of Washington's most generous patrons. Paulson is a top donor--mostly to the GOP. (To the chagrin of critics on the right, Paulson is also an ardent environmentalist and is chairman of The Nature Conservancy.) As Treasury Secretary, Paulson may have to dump some stock (he is the single largest shareholder in Goldman Sachs according to its 2006 proxy statement, with 4.6 million shares) to decrease his overwhelming conflict of interest, but even if he sells his unrestricted stock, he'll still have several hundred million bucks in RSU (restricted stock unit) awards, which are not immediately sellable. This could place him in a position where maintaining his financial well-being could necessitate supporting policies positive to Goldman's short-term stock price over long-term needs of the general economy, like dividend tax cuts.
...
...The question isn't how it's a conflict of interest for Paulson to preside over our country's economy but how it's not. According to the first general statement laid out in the "Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch": "Public service is a public trust requiring employees to place loyalty in the constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain." Even if Paulson ultimately sells all his stock and finds a way to offload his restricted stock, he will wield in the meantime enormous influence over the Treasury bond and foreign currency trading positions of Goldman, with every policy decision on debt issuance or the dollar that he makes. What's good for Goldman isn't necessarily good for Middle America. Therein lies the conflict of a man whose entire career has been predicated on successfully promoting corporate welfare over public interest.
source
We are relationship-driven lawyers, working to meet the ongoing legal needs of our clients wherever they do business. Operating across Asia, Europe and the US, we offer you more than 3,100 lawyers in 59 offices in 22 countries.
We act for enterprises across the full spectrum of business including local, national and multi-national companies in a wide range of business sectors. We have clients from single-owner startups to household name companies on a national and multinational basis.
Nice try.
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by dgtempe
Did i blame Bush? Go back and read where i said a Democrat wants to pass this draft. It is however, up to the Bush administration to pass it, should it pass.
No, you (purposely?) did not mention that the bill was sponsored by a democrat.
Also the link i posted clearly states this action was taken by a DEMOCRAT. Hard of seeing?
Originally posted by dgtempe
Nice try.
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by dgtempe
Did i blame Bush? Go back and read where i said a Democrat wants to pass this draft. It is however, up to the Bush administration to pass it, should it pass.
No, you (purposely?) did not mention that the bill was sponsored by a democrat.
Stop spinning; "This is big stuff. Democrats? Republicans
Its all the same crap. A Democrat sneaks it in, and all the Republicans approve it.
RIGHT."
That was precisely what i said. I leave the fearmongering to your pals in Washington.
Originally posted by hawk74
This is legit I saw an interview on MSNBC. This guy is really pushing this.
We used to have the Draft system but it fell out of favor after VN. I suppose the government has to do something because of its dwindling volinteer(sp) service.I can say for sure that if they start drafting people that don't want to be there incidents like what allegedly happened back in Nov. will surely increase in frequency.
But
The Draft is only relivent in the time of war, right now we're not at war. (remember Bush said we won) So maybe this guy (he's old) was thinking back to WWII when people actually believed what the Gov. was saying and we really were fighting for our freedom. I'm not overly concerned of some foriegn power conquering the US. They'd have to come here to do it and I don't see that happening. Not an invasaion maybe terrorist acts but a full blown invasion, No Way (2nd Amendment). So, for anybody to use this arquement "fighting for our freedom and way of life" doesn't cut it. I love my country, I love the Pesident(office not the man) and I'll gladly fight for freedom.
I'll be dambed if I fight over oil,or bananas or whatever "Big Business" losing it"s stake in a foreign country.
So, on its face having the "Draft" in place isn't bad it's how it's used. What is bad is how (under the current situation) it will be Abused!!!
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by dgtempe
Did i blame Bush? Go back and read where i said a Democrat wants to pass this draft. It is however, up to the Bush administration to pass it, should it pass.
No, you (purposely?) did not mention that the bill was sponsored by a democrat. You did, however, attempt to play on the public's fear of another draft. And it worked for you, as you got a bunch of members to post something like (paraphrasing here) "OMG another draft!". A couple others tried to blame Bush, so you didn't have to.
Correction to another thing you wrote: It would be up to Bush to sign the draft bill into law in the totally unlikely event that it was passed by both the House and Senate.
Look, don't you think this war is bad enough without trying to make it even worse? Guess not.
[edit on 6/8/2006 by centurion1211]
Originally posted by psyopswatcher
Political ploy, ruse, wedge issue... contingency plan? Any one of these could fit the bill but I still think it's there to keep debate alive and bring the original intent to the table in the possible event that a draft is considered necessary.
Back in the 60's and early 70's during the Vietnam draft era, the thing to do to beat being sent into the war zone was to join the National Guards as demonstrated by how Jr. skated out of any serious soldiering/warfighting* on his part.
Nowadays it's the Guard being sent overseas in the War on Terra, so that 70's option is out for anyone feeling the need to perform their duty but trying to stay out of harm's way.
Has anyone ever heard what Jr's draft number was? The lower the number, the greater the odds it would be called. The numbers were assigned to birthdays on a lottery-type basis.
* Gotta love that term that keeps turning up in news articles and releases from the Pentagon--warfighting, warfighters, etc. Had to use it sooner or later, I suppose. In the 80's, during my military time, we used the term Service Member.