Unfuckingbelievable, Dems try and reintroduce draft!

[Damocles]

You fucking idiot.

No, that doesn't apply, you squirmy little fuck. He's a lying shithead.

Weak. Understanding what somebody says is "squirmy". Just really weak.

 

[Cancel7]

Yes, flowing forward from his assertion that he (RangeL) had support for it he then appropriately used a plural to get his idea across. While I don't agree with the idea I can understand the path he took to get there.

Personally, I understand what Rangel is doing and that he has done it before and why. This is why I talk about Rangel, not "Democrats". The attempt to assume agreement in a simple clarification is a misled assumption, and the incapacity to simply understand what he said and point out where he was wrong is sad.

Damo, have you been doing a little of that oxycontin to celebrate your birthday?

Beers?

A little weed?

Come on, tell me.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Wayne Allard voted against the torture amendment and he's a Republican.
I'll bet he'll introduce it sometime in the future because then the Republicans will have more seats.
Therefore, all Republicans support torture.

 

[Onceler]

He suggested that the reason he is doing it at a certain time is because he thinks he will have support for it.

Rangel is a nut.

You know perfectly well what Dano was trying to do, and that this is what he does.

You're pretty pathetic sometimes.

 

[Damocles]

My belief is that most of America would be. It's YOUR belief, that three-quarters of a percentile equals "most republicans".

Which one of us is crazy?

I report, you decide.

No, when I say what I see among most republicans it is based on what I see among most republicans.

You were the one that said it would change their opinion on the war. I simply tell you such an idea would be effective, but not on the group you think it would.

You are wrong that it would have changed the Rs mind if the draft were instated in 2004.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Dano offered a weak-ass justification for basically saying that all Democrats support the draft.

If it gets a serious vote, more Republicans will vote for it than Democrats.

Why should I listen to Republicans like Damo who support torture, invading Iran, and starving the poor anyway?

 

[Damocles]

Damo, have you been doing a little of that oxycontin to celebrate your birthday?

Beers?

A little weed?

Come on, tell me.

This is inane.

An analogy would be the idea that I must totally be unable to comprehend anything I didn't agree with. Therefore I would have no capacity to understand a word of the Bible, for instance.

It's rubbish. Pretending you can't comprehend what he said because you disagree and arrive at a different place is just sad.

Reading WM's words it was clear he took off from a place that began from misidentification of meaning.

 

[Epicurus]

No. It calls for a draft. It's just that Rangel has introduced the same bill for the past six years now. I think the Republicans actually put it up for a vote once and even Rangel voted against it. It failed by a vote of 2-402.

Yeah he does this all the time. One of many reasons I don't trust Democrats, but he is just trying to prove a point and I doubt he'd vote for his own bill even if it stood a chance of passing.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This is inane.

An analogy would be the idea that I must totally be unable to comprehend anything I didn't agree with. Therefore I would have no capacity to understand a word of the Bible, for instance.

It's rubbish. Pretending you can't comprehend what he said because you disagree and arrive at a different place is just sad.

Reading WM's words it was clear he took off from a place that began from misidentification of meaning.

You support torture. Why should anyone listen to you?

 

[Damocles]

Dano offered a weak-ass justification for basically saying that all Democrats support the draft.

Yes.

If it gets a serious vote, more Republicans will vote for it than Democrats.

No. If it got a serious vote, most republicans know that it would turn many Americans who don't participate into activists. They, like last time, would not vote for it.

Why should I listen to Republicans like Damo who support torture, invading Iran, and starving the poor anyway?

Where have I supported that? Again, the ability to comprehend an idea that isn't from me does not mean that I agree with the idea. Don't be deliberately obtuse.

 

[Damocles]

You support torture. Why should anyone listen to you?

You are a ninny who clearly is emoting all over the board again. Slow down. Take a couple breaths. Relax a bit.

 

[Damocles]

Yeah he does this all the time. One of many reasons I don't trust Democrats, but he is just trying to prove a point and I doubt he'd vote for his own bill even if it stood a chance of passing.

He voted against it when it stood no chance of passing. If the author of the bill votes against it when it doesn't pass, it dies.

 

[Epicurus]

He voted against it when it stood no chance of passing. If the author of the bill votes against it when it doesn't pass, it dies.

Um I'm going to need you to explain this a little further.

If the author votes against a bill that doesn't pass anyway, it doesn't pass?

Either this is one of Damo's Captain Obvious moments or I am missing something.

 

[KingCondanomation]

The major point seems to have sailed over the left's head on this.
Rangel said he wants a draft back so that warmongering Republicans would think twice about starting a war, fair enough.
So NOW that Dems control all branches of government, why does he still want a draft?
Is he worried Dems are going to start wars or is he thinking with more Dems in power now there is a much better chance that he can bring the draft back?
Go on lefties, pick your poison.

Because again the original counterpoint of saying it would stop warmongering Repubs is dead, they are not in power.

 

[Damocles]

Um I'm going to need you to explain this a little further.

If the author votes against a bill that doesn't pass anyway, it doesn't pass?

Either this is one of Damo's Captain Obvious moments or I am missing something.

No, it dies. It no longer has a sponsor. Unless somebody chooses to then sponsor the bill, no further discussion will be made. However, if he votes for it, it can be brought up again by certain parties without them having to sponsor the bill.... Amendments can be made, changes to the law can be effected and a second vote can be taken on the bill with the new Amendments. If you want it to die, and you were the sponsor you need to vote against it.

At least that is how I understand it.

 

[uscitizen]

Can you believe this? Those fuckers spent all of the 2004 election fearmongering the electorate over Bush bringing back the draft and how we all needed to vote Dem to avoid getting drafted and now look at this:

"Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) likely will introduce his controversial legislation to reinstate the draft again this year, but he will wait until after the economic stimulus package is passed.

Asked if he plans to introduce the legislation again in 2009, Rangel last week said, “Probably … yes. I don’t want to do anything this early to distract from the issue of the economic stimulus.”"
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rangel-to-reintroduce-military-draft-measure-2009-01-14.html

What a bunch of hypocritical shitheads, barely mentioned in the Liberal media and worst of all, they try and play it off like other Dems won't pass it. If that's true why did Rangel wait til the election was done with a big Dem majority to reintroduce it? He's got support for it.

Best way to get the troops out of Iraq without appearing to cut an run

 

[Onceler]

"Rangel said he wants a draft back so that warmongering Republicans would think twice about starting a war, fair enough"

Really? That's not what the article you posted indicated.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

No, it dies. It no longer has a sponsor. Unless somebody chooses to then sponsor the bill, no further discussion will be made. However, if he votes for it, it can be brought up again by certain parties without them having to sponsor the bill.... Amendments can be made, changes to the law can be effected and a second vote can be taken on the bill with the new Amendments. If you want it to die, and you were the sponsor you need to vote against it.

At least that is how I understand it.

The vote was 3 for.

Sheesh, there's a lot of Democrats secretly hiding their support for this bill.

 

[Damocles]

The vote was 3 for.

Sheesh, there's a lot of Democrats secretly hiding their support for this bill.

And Rangel voted against it. For the reason I put forward, I believe.

Imagine if it was Amended to make it more "palatable"...

 

[Kamala Trump]

So it DOES call for a draft?