Mandatory Draft Bill snuck in and to be debated on 6/6/06

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by enthuziazm
I have dual citizenship. American/Canadian.

The US government doesn't recognize Dual Citizenship. Any American citizen is an American Citizen. If there was a draft, you'd be open to it, as an American Citizen. If you left for Canada, you'd be a criminal. If you don't want to fight, you can try to get concientious objector status. In WWII, people that got that were still inducted, but they were organized into civilian public work's brigades. Or you could refuse to fight w/o status and be held in a brig for the duration.


mrsdudara
you can check govtrak

Looks like its going to die in committee. Everyone must've made their political statement on the first draft bill Rangell proposed, so now they probably feel no need to repeat that statement.




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
We all know that this has gone through before. I cant help but think of the story about the Boy who cried wolf. Just because it got tossed out before, everyone is saying aint gonna happen. My outlook on that is we NEED to get upset EVERY time this is brought up. I am worried that the second everyone ignores it, and blows it off it will slip right on through.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewTB
I hope it passes.


Me too!

G'head...pass it, pass it....

tee-hee-hee-hee

hey guys....what shall we call our NEW government?

Ooh! let's rename the country...
how about... "Cedar Crest"

You know, I think the states are too small.
Oh..and the electoral college? buh-bye

Let's shut the whole country down for multicultural repairs.
Call a global cold war for the next 50 or so years while the world figures
out how to stop killing each other?

Hey, I can dream can't I?



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
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.

There will be no draft.




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrsdudara
you can check govtrak it takes 1-2 days to post though. Should be on there tomorow I would think.

Thanks for that link. It's always nice when someone works through a govt website and finds the good stuff


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.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Are you saying that he accepted bribes??? Oh wait, he was lobbied, I'm sorry.


I find it amazing that someone can be allowed to take money from people via "lobbying" and then vote a certain way, and NOT be called a crook. To me, that's the height of corruption, when the very people voting on the issues important to the people at large are being bought and paid for by the wealthy. Sad statement of affairs, if you ask me.

TheBorg



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   
I'm a little concerned with this list of companies that gave money to Rangell.

First, let me say that I'm not trying to defend Rangell, or the companies concerned, and that I'm in agreement with tho Borg on the whole lobbying/corruption thing.

All this is, is an attempt to ensure that logic prevails, and the statement that these companies gave money for this bill is not demonstrated by the link, as far as I can see.

The companies gave campaign contributions to Rangell, but there is no date, so my first assumption would be that it would have been around the time of the last election. That's a very shaky assumption, but the best I can do.

To assert that those contributions are solely for this Bill is kind of a leap of logic, franly, and assume that Rangell has done NOTHING ELSE. Now, for all I know that could actually be true, but I suspect he will have done things that benefit these companies more directly.

The link also states that the monies were not given directly by the companies, so it would have been nice to show how the money was passed.

And can anyone attempt to show how each of these companies might benefit from a draft? I think that would be another good clarification of the situation.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   

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.

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.



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

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]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
if this bill goes through it will be war alright civil war!!!!



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Don't worry KLSyesca, the Republicans will save you from the Democrat's Draft.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Well, there is no update on this bill. It looks like it didn't make it far enough to even be voted on.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   

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.


Yes, interesting when you consider Jr.'s last hurrah is to nominate Goldman Sachs CEO as the new Treasury Secretary. But they have a long history, making their political contributions good business sense (whatever party) for the investment banking firm ...




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





Also, Altria Group was Philip Morris Companies Inc., one of the world's largest food, beverage, and tobacco corporations.


[edit on 9-6-2006 by psyopswatcher]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
@ psyopswatcher

Thanks for the info on those companies.
To continue along, we have an insurance company and an Hispanic group, and finally, www.dlapiper.com...

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.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   

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.
Nice try.
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.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

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.
Nice try.
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.
Also the link i posted clearly states this action was taken by a DEMOCRAT. Hard of seeing?



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

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!!!


REPLY: If it wasn't for the WW2 generation we might be speaking German right now, but you are obviously too yopung to understand that, being a product of the (faiuled) public school system over the past 35 years. Considering the attitudes of many young people today, a draft wouldn't be a bad thing. By the way, to presume Republicans would automatically vote for a draft is daft. Also by the way, Bush never said "we won"... he merely said the major fighting was over, which is true.

[edit on 10-6-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   

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]


REPLY: I'm siding with dgtempe on this one. It's rather obvious and easily found that Rangell is a liberal/Democrat. For what it's worth, Bush wouldn't sign it; and I'm sure some would rake him over the coals for it, whether he signed it or not. Damned if you do; damned if you don't.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   

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.


REPLY: ahhhh.... Neal Young, whose talent is so limited, and whose continued popularity is only extended by those who were so *SNIP* stoned in the 70's they didn't realise what they were listening to. By the way, the lower the number, the bigger chance you WOULD be called into service. Also, Bush Jr. ASKED to be sent to Viet Nam.... TWICE. If anyone wants to sign up, but be out of "harms way," is no American.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 11/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join