angelofdeath Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/ haha, its coming from a liberal democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 actually the first statement in the article depicting his reasonings makes sense: "I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Rangel said. "Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country," Rangel said. "For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance." sounds pretty liberal to me if the draft was initiated; conservatives, the middle and upper-middle class, and republicans won't be so war happy. look at the vietnam era. when poor blacks and latinos and poor whites were fighting nobody gave a shit. the draft gets activated and rich white people and college kids all of a sudden cared. i support the draft. will make people think twice about going to war and will rid the nation of armchair commandos. also because i already served so i don't have to go. lololol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACashRefund Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 if the draft was initiated; conservatives, the middle and upper-middle class, and republicans won't be so war happy. look at the vietnam era. when poor blacks and latinos and poor whites were fighting nobody gave a shit. the draft gets activated and rich white people and college kids all of a sudden cared. good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted November 20, 2006 Author Share Posted November 20, 2006 supporting conscription is the same as supporting slavery. rangel's points about war hawks fighting is a good one, but nonetheless i dont support involuntary servitude reguardless of income, color, creed, ethnicity or age. liberals talk a good game about being anti war. but in the end, they are interventionist to the note. they dont support the current iraq war, but made no qualms about bombing it during the clinton reign of terror or various other interventions. its alright, as long as they do it on thier terms, and for the 'greater good.' what rangel is doing, is sponsoring a bill to create an army of slaves for the imperial US army. the current system is fully voluntary, and lacks coercion. i forgot, i forgot, slavery is ok, as long as its rich whites who are enslaved or done under name of 'democracy.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Dude, January 8, 2003. This draft nonsense did its rounds a looooong time ago and was endlessly discussed in pretty much every message board on the internet, including this one. It was more of an awarness/political statement than anything else. Where the hell were you guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted November 20, 2006 Author Share Posted November 20, 2006 yeah people have been talking about it for a long time. its a big deal to me, but.... rangel just made statement about reintroducing the bill. sorry, i sent the wrong story... i read that story after hearing about his plan to resurrect the bill. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16057225.htm from nov 20th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_R_O_N Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/ haha, its coming from a liberal democrat. your topic title is very misleading, but regardless of that that draft never needs to raise its ugly god-forsaken head ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Like mams said before, this shit is old. He is doing it again to show the same inequities in the "fully elective" selection process. Didn't the guy from New mexico back the last one as well? I seem to remember him being involved as well. AOD, your reading of this is rediculous. You go to such weird extremes to demonize anyone thats not ron paul in the current government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 rangel is calling for conscription. im calling a spade a spade. the synonym for "military draft" is 'slavery' and the rangel crowd supports it. and most neocons and liberals appear to be alright with it. but i still dont think it will happen. but the lip service they give it, sure pisses me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 It has nothing to do with actually getting conscription cosigned by the rest of the members of congress or the house. Do you actually think he expects this to be passed? It is satyr. It is an extreme position outside the realm of actual realization expressed to show certain social ideologies and agendas. It has nothing to do with actually getting conscription implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Yeah dude but like Waco and the constitution and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 haha... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardyHarHar Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I don't like it. If the decision to go to war was actually decided by our representatives in congress rather than the president and his staff; it might then be a good idea. This idea seems a little too late, and politically insensitive. After all, Dubya's term limit comes up soon, so there's no way to vote him out of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theo Huxtable. Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 your topic title is very misleading, but regardless of that that draft never needs to raise its ugly god-forsaken head ever again. yeah not only is the title misleading but he failed to read between the lines on Rangel's arguments. he doesn't really "want" a draft, but he thinks the ideal behind initiating a draft is good because it will prevent the country to rush to war unneccessarily. conservatives and other warhawks will think twice with a draft hanging over their head. rangel's proposal is actually very liberal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Yeah dude but like Waco and the constitution and stuff. HEY! Don't defend Clinton for his hand in Waco, man! I saw this documentary and attended this lecture on how he actually set the fire and then gunned down three Branch Dividian children. Fuckin' liberals are all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 just the same as anyone who doesn't believe in the most chauvinistic reading of american political governance ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Yeah dude but like Waco and the constitution and stuff. Yo, child molesting cult leaders with machine guns are heroes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 my prediction: if a republican was talking about the draft, it would be the biggest uproar in in politics since watergate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 "Will The Middle Class Please Stand Up? by Andrew S. Fischer Almost incredibly, mere days after the Democratic party's Nancy Pelosi/John Murtha fiasco, its highly-visible Congressman from New York, Charles Rangel, has taken the Dems' figurative foot out of its mouth and inserted it into a much darker place. In case you missed it, Rangel, future chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, proclaimed on the CBS Sunday morning news program Face the Nation that he intends to submit a bill to reinstate conscription. He is quoted as saying: "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft." Not to worry – a new draft would allow some young people to "serve" as security guards at "seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals." At the end of their year or two of involuntary servitude, some as yet undefined "educational benefits" would be offered. Rangel hypocritically believes that a draft would make Congressmen think twice about sending kids off to war, while simultaneously arguing that more soldiers are needed for future military actions. I, for one, hope the draft is reinstated. Not because I agree with Rangel, but because I'm hopeful that such legislation will finally cause our complacent middle class to wake up and say "NO!" I've been telling acquaintances (and anyone else who'll listen) for many years that there will be no meaningful change until the middle class riots. Yes, riots – with pitchforks and axe handles, and even guns – screaming in rage, finally understanding its status as mere victim of the whims of the state. For several years now I've seen a military draft as the only thing that might get the members of the middle class off their contented-cow asses, get them to stop wasting countless dollars on playthings at the nearby mall, and slash their hours spent hypnotized by the never-ending stream of valueless Hollywood drivel. I imagine that many might think that even Rangel's draft would fail to ignite political passion in our present population, but I see it differently. I see mothers and fathers livid, phoning their elected representatives for the first time in their lives, refusing to send their kids to the draft office and shipping them to Canada instead. I see organized mobs of angry patriots, swarming over federal and state capitols alike, shouting their displeasure and defiance. I see resistance, civil disobedience, thundering voices crying "Hell no – they won't go!" as parents repudiate the state's edict that their children offer up their lives and futures for yet another dubious military adventure, or that they submit to slavery in the guise of "serving their country." As our panicked leaders quickly back down, hopefully other positive changes would take place, with the apparatus of a suddenly politicized population now in place. Perhaps all governments, federal, state and local, will be forced by a new, energized electorate to retract its tentacles in all sorts of areas, and be required to endow us with far more liberty and far less government. Will it all actually happen? Will the middle class finally stand up? November 21, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Have you people ever heard of thought expirements? By mentioning the possibility of subscription, Rangel is prompting the relevant discourse and "outrage" so expressed by the article. The point is to get people speaking about the relevant issues to military desicion making especially in light of an institution that seems to do so willy nilly. The exact hope of the author of that article is, what I am sure, the point of this entire beaurocratic excercize proposed by Rangel. Manipulation is not always a bad thing. It seems more like a subversive application of the Socratic method than anything else. By virtue of instilling an anger against an extremist position in the form of an ideologically contradictive symbol (a Democrat, for those that can't interpolate meaning into this situation), Rangel is getting the desired response. The public notion of who Rangel is is merely but another device being used to insight such a position being displayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 extremism in defense of liberty is no vice eh? I could reasonably argue that conscription is the extreme defense of liberty as we take it. By virtue of putting us into places like Iran, etc, where liberty does not abound, we are making a better claim for it and in defense of it by propogating it and ensuring its survival home and abroad. Extremism in any sense is retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted November 21, 2006 Author Share Posted November 21, 2006 " I could reasonably argue that conscription is the extreme defense of liberty as we take it. By virtue of putting us into places like Iran, etc, where liberty does not abound, we are making a better claim for it and in defense of it by propogating it and ensuring its survival home and abroad." eh, i think that sounds absolutely retarded. this is a jacobin notion. one that involves massive military force to destroy a part of a population to get the desired outcome of liberty. this is no different than GW bush's notion that we must 'spread democracy' by tanks and bombs. this is actually the exact opposite of liberty. conscription (not subscription, im guessing you typed wrong) is pure evil. the coercive nature of it is horrible, but am i the only one who finds it hypocritical to enslave your population to spread 'freedom and democracy' around the world? i dont care what rangel's motives are... for him even to talk about drafting citizens against thier will into service of the state, is enough for me to permanently dislike the guy. i have a feeling crooked, you are personally opposed to conscription, but you just feel like arguing today... eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 No, I was being sarcastic. My point was that extremism in any respect is not a good position to hold. You drew the parallel to Bush because that's exactly what I was shooting for. I was juxtoposing an extremist agenda based off what your signature says... As for being argumentative, I had a horrible class today where I basically learned that my professor is a complete idiot. I'll give ya'll a couple good qoutes: "There is no truth in metaphorical meaning, comparative to literal meaning of a lexical entry." "I recognize that this school is taught in the fashion of being interdisciplinary but there is not really any connection to discuss between philosohy of language and psychology of language in this class." my response: "Your entire field exists because of philosophy." and on and on we went. We were talking about literal vs. metaphorical construal in symantic processing. I went on to discuss the point that perhaps literal meaning is just a particular case of metaphorical meaning, so it is less a question of which one is predominant in our given interpretation of a word, but looking to see how we contextually access metaphorical meaning. This was all given that there is always going to be a certain level of incommunication between totality of concepts through language. It was horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 im calling a spade a spade. . Better watch your language there, it could be misinterpreted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Told you he hates niggers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted November 22, 2006 Author Share Posted November 22, 2006 ferm: is this that website you were talking about that helped you out with your problem? how to suck your own dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 Nice comeback, swifty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPMS556 Posted November 29, 2006 Share Posted November 29, 2006 Told you he hates niggers. as a opposed to liking niggers? or just niggers in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted December 1, 2006 Share Posted December 1, 2006 It was a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Of Hell Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 i think there should be manditory 2 years service for every american. you should be able to choose what branch of service(including things like peace corps, coast guard, whatever) but you should have to put intwo years maditory. fuck everyone. the draft comment was said to make a point. if the consequences were different, then you would act different. just because some people see the draft as the equivilent to slavery doesn't mean that how other people draw that conclusion. its all context and your taking his point and adding your belief system to it to form an opinion. thats wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.