Well, it seems like young American men have finally determined that Mr.Bush, despite his denials, has plans to “reinstate the military draft.” Now why does anyone suppose this is happening? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that even though Mr.Bush, Mr. Cheney and slew of other hawkish Republicans who never stepped into a war zone themselves clearly will need more and more folks to send to Iraq in the future. (After all, this war ain’t gonna end for some time folks, as long as Bushy Boy is in office. Don’t believe all that Bush b.s. Wars are costly in terms of lives and money and Bush is gonna need both of these if he gets put back into the White House).
Apparently, young American men have decided that Cheney is a clown
who doesn’t care about how many lives are lost in Iraq, as long as he never had to put on a uniform and be sent to a foreign land to “enforce” democracy throughout the world. It is also clear that Bush is nothing more than a hypocrite who stayed in America while his peers went and lost limbs and lives in Vietnam.
Will Bush get put back into office? Possibly. Will there a be a draft in the next 4 years if he is allowed to retain his job? Absolutely. And anyone who disagrees with this is simply too blind to read the writing on the wall.
FACT: Congress has only the power to reinstate a draft.
FACT: Deomocats are the only people in Congress so far to propose a draft, including Rep. Rangel (D) who introduced a bill.
FACT: Voluntary elistment is up since 911.
FACT: Young people are not older mature people with wisdom born of life experience. That’s why we call them “young people”.
Come to your own conculsions. Try to use common sense Cable Guy.
My conclusion: Kerry campaign is desperate. They (Howard Dean) should go back to the charge that Bush will engage in “book burning”. It is more illuminating. Maybe they should start talking about Bush being abducted by aliens. Nano Nano
[quote]FACT: Deomocats are the only people in Congress so far to propose a draft, including Rep. Rangel (D) who introduced a bill.
FACT: Voluntary elistment is up since 911.[/quote]
Would you be kind enough to explain why you think that Bush didn’t point these “facts” out during the debate? After all, he had to know that this subject might be brought up during the debate so why didn’t he tell the American voters about these “facts?” I really would love to hear the answer.
Well, my common sense tells me that there are a very limited number of active duty soldiers and reservists so if they keep dying in Iraq where will the new group of soldiers come from? Please excuse my skepticism concerning any words that come out of Bush’s mouth. He doesn’t exactly have the most stellar record for always being factual with what he says.
He didn’t bring it up in the first debate since he wasn’t asked about it in the first debate. Duuhhh! :loco:
Just watched the second presidential debate. He was aksed about it point blank. Bush said clearly (twice) that there would be “no draft”. He referred to it as a “rumor on the Internet” … Even if congress did pass such a bill, he could veto it in order to keep his word. So, your only defense is to say, “Well, who can trust Bush?” :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: Is that all you have? :help:
The reasons he gave that I can remember off the top of my head:
We need to maintain a professional, specialized military [brought about by voluntary service].
We need to reduce troop levels for better technology supplments.
We need to bring more people home to continue to attract people.
We need to reduce in Korea and Europe to reflect post-Cold War.
We need to focus more on technology, intelligence, instead of massing troops.
Kerry’s response?? Just like a butterfly. Here and there, but neither there or here. Just all “feel good” and no substance that you can really say, “Here is a man who I know is going to do this or that.”
Bush was weak in the first debate. Bush kicked ass in the second debate. He showed himself to be a guy that said “yes” and “no” to questions. Kerry, as usual, couldn’t commit to ANYTHING …
Except for one time where Kerry looked in the camera and said he would NOT raise taxes on those making below 200K … But then again, if I used Cable Guy’s logic, I could use Kerry’s tax-raising, 20-year history to say we can’t trust him.
Let it read “assault weapons” because some semi-automatic weapons will still be legal.[/quote]
An assualt weapon is an automatic/selective fire weapon used by military and/or police forces. The weapons covered by the law were not “assault weapons” but merely semi-automatic weapons with cosmetic touches giving them the appearance of military weapons. This appearance was used by the media and certain politicians to frighten the unknowing masses.
However, Bush sat idly by as the temporary assault weapons bill went out of the law books, though it had been his word to make it permanent.[/quote]
Not his job. If Congress wanted it, they should have passed it and sent it to him. But the Democrats were terrified of touching it, because the last time they did it, the Republicans took back the House of Representatives. Clinton himself attributed losing twenty Democrappic seats to that stupid law.
