Millions of American citizens who have been convicted of crimes in the past are denied the ability to cast ballots in elections.
We don't windsurf in Harlem.
"Well," Rangel said. "I really think that he shatters the myth of white supremacy once and for all; it shows that, in this great country, anybody can become president."
"It's the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country," Rangel told WWRL Radio's Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. "This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored."
Quote:
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way,"
Source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900376_pf.html
1. If the evidence was so "flimsy" why did the white flag Democrats vote in favor of going to war in Iraq? Rangel says the evidence presented to Congress was flimsy. If so,why did so many Dems side with the President?
2. Why didn't they vote against the president when they had the chance?
3. Why didn't they tell the American people that the evidence was flimsy after they saw it?
4. Why does Rangel say the evidence was flimsy YEARS after the fact? Why wasn't his party saying this six years ago?
5. If it is not right to send people who VOLUNTEER to join the military to Iraq, how is going to be right to DRAFT people to go? If the evidence is too "flimsy" for volunteers, why is it suddenly strong enough to draft people?
Remember how some Democrats were using the draft as a scare tatic against Bush?
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.asp ... /reason926 Notice this:
On Capitol Hill, there are two pieces of legislation that propose a draft. The Senate version has seen no action. It was sponsored by Ernest “Fritz” Hollings, D-S.C., who is retiring and, no doubt, has his mind on lazy days in the Palmetto State.
The House version is the work of Rep. Charles Rangel, the intrepid New York Democrat, who really started this whole thing before the U.S. invaded Iraq.
BEFORE the U.S. invaded Iraq? Hmmm....
Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious."
"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," he said
Source:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene ... rss&rpc=22 6. If the draft is about challanging Iran, NK, and sending more troops to Iraq as Rangel says, why was he calling for a draft BEFORE we invaded Iraq?
It's a shame no one will ever ask him about that "flimsy evidence" and why Democrats still voted to go into Iraq on TV so we could all hear his reply.
By the way, I thank you for your service. I'm not sure I would have had the guts to enlist, but I suppose that might have been better than just getting randomly drafted.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
"Old Testament" style system where newlyweds, those who are just establishing property or houses, or those who were fearful simply did not have to go. I also happen to believe that our Constitution and the Colonial idea of a militia (no I'm not advocating some of the strange birds out there today) might not be such a bad thing... And maybe reinstitute a form of the old privateers or something like the Rough Riders and give them commissions to go "terrorist hunting" (read old time - pirate hunting) if there is a need for such things. I don't think we'd be at the point we are at now if we spent more time with securing our own borders as opposed to police operations all over the globe. That's why I didn't join the Air Force to begin with, instead of going the private route to becoming a pilot!
