Read it here:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...ua_congressorg
Printable View
Read it here:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...ua_congressorg
Update: I've contacted, by email, every major U.S. News Network to try and get this out... I suggest you all, if you are against another draft, do the same as well as contacting your representatives.
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Go here, look up S. 89 and HR 163 they are exactly the same bill.
EDIT: Broken Link
I sent it to my local news papper and local tv news channels to see if they run with it.
ps your http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query
link didnt work..
Error in at line 242 in query.c
You'd better secure your airfare to Canada posthaste, Slaughter. The exodus will begin soon!
Read closer Palooka, that won't even work this time around.
I'm gonna buy a boat.
Right you are. I missed that paragraph when I skimmed the article.
I like that..."the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately."
Hook, line, and sinker, Slaughter.
Wow, that kind of looks like a government site, but it's a cesspool of liberal screeds.
Click on the "president and vp" link on the upper left and hold your nose before you read anything else.
It's not a government site. Only designed to look like one.
I don't think there is any chance of this passing.
BTW, this bill was sponsored by Charlie Rangel - an ultra-liberal Democrat from NYC.
That they're obviously trying to trick the reader should sound a big fat alarm in your head.
Yeah, I know. The draft bill is not a case of the president trying to "put one over" on the country. It's a bill sponsored by anti-Bush types, who want to stir more opposition to Bush by threatening the draft.
ROFL!! :emblaugh:
Hey Slaughter... you get that 'gullible' tattoo yet? ;) Do you honestly think if these bills were legit and going to be voted on that the liberal media wouldn't hold a 2 hour prime time special to slam the Bush administration for it?
I think this is a perfect example how so many of the 'general' public can fall for, and propagate, the most basic levels of misinformation, generalization, and flat out lies. "Sheeple" The exact reason why Scary has a very good chance of winning the election this fall.
Military service should be mandatory for all. It's a great character builder. Even if it's in just a reserve component. 2 years goes fast. AND, you build a nation of reserves that way. We'll need 100,000,000 soldiers fro when China invades.
I don't think a mandatory service program is necessarily a bad thing and it would better prepare the nation for "unexpected events".
But who's going to pay for it?
Me, I'd support the Starship Troopers mantra.
Service guarantees citizenship!
I'd have joined the federal service in order to vote.
I think our military performs better when composed of a group of professionals who actually decide for themselves whether or not they
want to do it. Drafts are for emergencies. We may get there in this war, but we aren't close to it yet.
If you want to compulse something, compulse community service.
Fake this, gullible that.. blah blah.. Fact of the matter is these are real bills in the house and the senate. You can tell me they're fake and that I'm gullible all you want, but the fact of the matter is that these DO exist..
Tell me I'm gullible when Me and many more kids are being drafted to go to a war we shouldn't be in.
The bills exist. They're old news. You're gullible to believe a "conspiracy website" that writes in hushed tones that the Bush administration is trying to sneak them through before the election.
You also seem to be misinformed about the process. A bill is not a law. These bills have no shot at passing - even if the Bush adminstration was in favor of them (which it is not.)
So chill.
Doesn't the fact that these bill exist, coupled with the fact that some politicians are saying "If Rumsfeld's theory of a Hard, long slog in Iraq(and otherwise against terrorism) is correct, we may need this." just a little scary to you?
The fact that both are IDENTICAL, and that Bush has a good chance at winning the election means that there is a good chance this bill could be activated, passed by both the house and the senate quickly and then passed to Bush.
The Bush family is nothing but a bunch of War mongers... we went to Iraq to finish what we should have finished a decade ago, there has been no real reason to be there. WMD's that, Link's with Terrorists this.. all have come to be false.
Personally, I want Bush's head for being a terrorist (though he has been a good "patriotic" president (if you call stopping teaching kids to be Americans and teaching them to be "internationalist" good and patriotic)... cause if Gore had been in office we would've been bending over and taking it).
Lets see, has to be passed by 75% of the house and about the same majority of the senate.. if the president vetoes it that can be overturned by a 2/3 vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly
Republicans have majority control on both the Senate and House, correct?
Yes, but not 2/3 majority, at least in the Senate. (I'm not sure about the house.) But I think you miss the point of what others are saying--these bills were sponsored by a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, not Republicans, and do not have the support from either Bush or the Republicans in Congress, and thus have basically no chance of passing.
A bill only has to be passed by a simple majority. To my knowledge, Republicans only have control of the House. I believe in the Senate it's a 50/50 tie, with the Vice President voting on tie breakers in his capacity as President Of The Senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter
Another thing to consider is that even though these bills exist, they're likely to be bogged down in committee and will never actually see a floor vote.
I could be wrong on all of this, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter
Except that nobody but a couple of nut-jobs are in favor of this, and they are only bringing it up for political reasons (Rangle playing the race-card, as usual.)Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter
Saddam was in violation of the terms of his cease fire agreement, as well as something like 14 UN mandates. If we didn't enforce them, nobody would.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter
We thought he had WMDs. Clinton thought he had WMDs. The UN thought he had WMDs. FRANCE thought he had WMDs. Hell HE probably thought he had WMDs. He was running a terrorist training center, complete with a plane for use in hijacking training. He was funding Hezbolla and Hamas. He was harboring multiple terrorists including Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and al-Zarqawi. He allowed Al-Qaeda friendly terrorists and organizations to move freely and set up camps through the country - including Hamas and Muntada al-Ansar.
Finally, the move makes complete strategic sense. A democratic nation in the heart of the dictators and fanatics is precisely what they fear. Without poverty and dispair they can't rule over the Arab masses. That's a huge reason why they are desperate for us to fail - and why we must succeed.
A successful Iraq will show the entire Arab world where the root cause of their failures as a culture really lies - in the murderous deceit of their leaders.
Do some research man, and not at the loony "UFO/Bigfoot is coming!" sites you've been posting your quotes from.
No comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter
Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Squidly
Can you cite specific references please?
Certainly:
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions.
Saddam Harbored Terrorists Who Killed Americans
US Ponders Next Step for Abu Abbas
Al-Qaeda Brass in Iraq?
Saddam Gives Money to Families of Slain Palestinians
Palestinians get funds
Saddam is sending money to families of suicide bombers
Salman Pak
The 9-11 Connection
PBS Interview with Sabah Khodada (worked at Salman Pak)
Jet shell reinforces suspicions about terrorist training
Jailed militants tell NEWSWEEK how their group has adapted to fight U.S. occupation
Three Prisoners in N. Iraq Outline Links Between Al Qaeda and Iraq
Satellite photos of Salman Pak. They're the first ones I had bookmarked, but there are many others which show it far better. These will suffice for now.
I could literally go on all day.
You're confused, Slaughter. Liberals, not conservatives, are teaching American kids to be multicultural internationalists (i.e. New World Order UN lovers) rather than patriotic Americans. The liberals in the teachers' unions are firmly in control of the curriculum in our schools, and they don't teach patriotism. They teach kids that western civilization is no better than any other, including Islamic civilization (if we can still call it that).
Bush is a terrorist now? I guess that makes your personal hero, Bill Clinton, a terrorist, as well. His 78-day air war in Kosovo, which he prosecuted unilaterally without UN approval (Why weren't hysterical leftist moonbats out clogging the streets of San Francisco when Clinton did exactly what they fervently hate Bush for doing?), killed an estimated 500 Serbian and ethnic Albanian civilians, according to Human Rights Watch and NATO's own findings. Of course, these deaths were accidental, and that's why neither Clinton nor Bush are terrorists. Terrorists intentionally target innocent women and children to inflict maximum damage to the morale of those whom they hate due typically to fanatical religious or political convictions. That is not the MO of President Bush. Besides, how can Bush, the one man who has done more to eradicate terrorism than any other in history, be considered a terrorist, himself? Only uninformed, irrational young moonbats, utterly blinded by their seething hatred of Bush, could harbor such delusions. You aren't one of them, are you?
By the way, I agree with Squidly on the draft. In some places, like Israel, mandatory service is necessary; they are in a life or death struggle on a daily basis, surrounded by enemies on all sides who seek only their complete extermination. We don't face the same dire circumstances at the moment. Besides, our military is in best form when it is composed of professional soldiers who want to serve their country rather than disenfranchised kids who'd rather be smoking pot and playing their Playstations, utterly oblivious to the outside world.
We're better off without a draft. When it becomes apparent that we need a significantly larger military (which many experts are already saying), perhaps they should come up with better incentives for volunteers.
Additionally, recruitment is reportedly meeting or exceeding goals set by all branches this year.
" I guess that makes your personal hero, Bill Clinton, a terrorist"
Never said he was my personal hero, I just think he was a damn fine president. Anyone who says he ruined the economy is a nut-job. 9-11 Ruined the economy, and Bush has done a fairly good job turning that around.
As my father said, we're reaching a point where interest rate taxes need to go up, or inflation needs to happen.. He'd much rather not live through another inflation and I would agree with myself not wanting to live through one either.
BTW: I still say Bush's Tax refund was an idiotic move.
Maybe when you become a working man, you'll begin to think differently about taxes, Slaughter. Average Americans work five months out of the year just to pay their taxes. Why should the government get ten of my paychecks? They didn't do the work. Federal income tax is nothing more than income redistribution, and it should either be done away with entirely or limited to a flat rate that everyone pays. There are a lot of creative ways for the government to tax the people without simply stealing our paychecks. How about a federal sales tax on luxury items? The rich would still pay 90% of the taxes (voluntarily, of course) while the rest of us get to keep our hard-earned money to invest in our homes, retirement, and children's education.
By the way, the tax cuts were very good for me. Last year, I owed $300-something in April. This year, I got a $1700 refund. It has been a windfall, and Bush gets my thanks for letting me keep more of my money.
I do believe our economy is going through inflation at this moment.
Inflation is held in check by interest rates, not higher taxes.
We are still taxed too much. We should be cutting down on some of these entitlements, not raising taxes.
I can't even comment on the above because I can't comprehend the logic of the statement. I quote Palooka: "You're confused, Slaughter". Interest rates are a function of the OMC and monetary policy. They decrease rates to stimulate the economy, and raise rates in part to combat inflation. Inflationary pressures would result in the OMC increasing rates to keep inflation in check. Why do we need inflation or higher interest rates to SLOW DOWN THE ECONOMY? Even with some evidence of inflation creeping in, the chance of the Fed increasing rates at their next meeting is 50/50 and if they do, at MAX it will be 50 basis points, but most likely 25. These low interest rates over the last several years has increased home ownership by Americans to record levels. The greatest percentage of Americans in history own homes today and that has to do with a strong economy and low interest rates. The only thing "bad" about low interest rates are for those who depend on fixed rates of return on their money (like retirees) and savings. Low interest rates stimulate activity making capital inexpensive for businesses to expand and for people (I know, "the Rich") to purchase goods and service. Higher interest rates are not a good thing, and inflation is not a "good" thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Slaughter
I don't think anyone said Clinton 'ruined' the economy, but he gets way too much credit and Bush all the blame for the economic slow down that began under his administration. It was an economic cycle, pushed forward by 9/11. The cycle had little to do with either president, outside the Bush tax cuts which clearly stimulated the economy.