# News Scaring the public witless is part of our job description

1. Oct 31, 2004

### plover

Well, at least http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/247753p-212149c.html [Broken]...

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
2. Oct 31, 2004

### franznietzsche

And the democrats are pushing draft bills through congress, and claiming that under bush a draft is coming.

At least I'm honest....

3. Oct 31, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
The democrats could never get a draft so your point is moot. It will require Republican support; which it will get after the election. It will get it because Bush has left us no options. He lies about this in order to get elected. His word is no better now than it was before the invasion.

4. Oct 31, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/themes/

5. Oct 31, 2004

### franznietzsche

And Kerry and the Democrats are no better. They are the only ones talking about a draft. kerry is the one talking about expanding the US armed forces which will require a draft. Kerry will bring a draft just as quickly as Bush. Especially if, as you claim without evidence, the republicans support it.

6. Oct 31, 2004

### Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
So then you agree that Bush is lying and Kerry is not. The key is that Kerry will build our alliances to help spread the burden. He will also work to get us out of Iraq. Bush never will. Vote for Bush if you like the military life. Kerry will bring you home ASAP.

Allegedly Bush opposes taking the steps needed to protect our nation against terrorism and other global threats. Our military is seriously stretched beyond its limit. I heard recently that they are pulling guys in their 50s now. Give me a break! Bush is acting recklessly, or he is lying, or more likely, both.

On the flip side, we may not need a draft if Kerry can get us out of Iraq quickly enough, or at least reduce our burden there soon after he takes office. This will be done with something unknown to the Bush team: Diplomacy. Arrogance and bullying don't work well but they have gotten us where we are today - $225,000,000,000 further in debt. 1200 dead, 29,500 injured, and the army on the verge of serious resource problems. 7. Oct 31, 2004 ### Gokul43201 Staff Emeritus Holy smokes...I thought the reported numbers were only around 4 or 5 thousand !! 8. Oct 31, 2004 ### franznietzsche As i recall the deficit was$460 Billion, so where do you get \$225 BIllion (and writing out all the zeros to strengthen your argument is jsut assinine)?

Yeah Bush is definitely at least tweaking the truth and spinning it all, if not outright lying. I've despised the schmuck since before he was elected. Always will. And I'm conservative.

No I'm saying Kerry is lying by claiming that the republicans are trying to push a draft. He and the Dems are the only ones talking about a draft. They're using it as a scare tactic, lying claims that the republicans are doing it.

Kerry is no better. Kerry calims he will do that, but i don't exactly see european nations lining up to send troops in if Kerry is elected. Kerry is making promises he can't keep, and he knows it. Just because he says he will get allies to contribute doesn't mean they will--If i were them i wouldn't want to send my citizens to Iraq to help a war i didn't approve of to ebgin with. Diplomacy means we would have to give the europeans something to get them to help us at this point. And what can we give? We don't have anything to give them that would justify their getting involved.

No we are in this on our own, Kerry or Bush, it doesn't matter. Kerry won't be able to bring in Allies. Kerry wants to exapnd the armed forces by 40,000. Where does he plan to get these men? Not from volunteering i hope, that would make for antoher failed campaign promise. That means a draft.

Someone in a statistics class was doing a poll on campus, and one of there questions was "If you knew 1200 americans would die, would you have supported going into Iraq?" Anyone who thoughtwe wouldn't ahve that many or more casualties by now shouldn't be allowed to continue wasting oxygen on gross stupidity. This is a war. Of course people are going to die. Funny, I don't see the media reporting the number of enemy combatants killed vs number of deaths recieved. I wonder why that is...no i don't, its because it would show an overwhelming advantage in our favor.

Bottom Line: Vote Bush, get screwed. Vote Kerry, get screwed in a different way. Stop pretending that one is somehow this beacon of greatness, better than the other.

9. Oct 31, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

I'll remember you said that.

10. Oct 31, 2004

### franznietzsche

As will I.

11. Oct 31, 2004

### aeroegnr

Not only that, but the bill was shut down with only 2 representatives voting for it in the house. The 14 cosponsors didn't even bother voting for it! That reeks highly of deceit to me.

12. Oct 31, 2004

### franznietzsche

Exactly. The only purpose is to scare people into voting for Kerry by lying and claiming that a draft is looming overhead if you vote for Bush. Its a blatant lie.

13. Nov 1, 2004

### plover

Pushing!? :rofl: I really would suggest learning a little about the House Rules Committee before making claims like that...

• Yes, a draft bill was introduced by Democrats in Jan 2003 (the House sponsor was Charles Rangel, D-NY):
Rangel and several co-sponsors said they introduced the bill primarily to raise awareness of who makes up most of the volunteer army and to stimulate debate about the administration's military and economic policies. The nation has "an indirect draft of minorities and the poor" -- people left out of Bush's tax cuts and struggling to find jobs, said Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). [source]
• Yes, rumors started to fly about the capital a few months ago that Bush would institute a draft, and it's pretty clear they were started by the Dems.
• It is also taken pretty much for granted by many both inside and outside the military that Bush has screwed up our force commitments so thoroughly that a draft is almost inevitable no matter who gets elected.
• Democrats are, of course, hoping Kerry will prevent this from happening. On this point, I'm not sure whether the Dems are deluded or disingenuous, but they can at least say that Kerry didn't institute the policies that created this mess. (And it's certainly a lot easier to be confident that Kerry isn't going to invade even more countries for trumped up reasons.)
But none of this has much of anything to do with the vote on the draft bill that took place a few weeks ago. The bill sat around for almost two years going nowhere—it was never even discussed in the Armed Services Committee. But suddenly a few weeks ago it was necessary to vote on it. Why? Because the Republican leadership decided they wanted to—DeLay even says as much. Plus, as the GOP is the majority party, they have control of the Rules Committee, and thus are the only faction could have caused this vote to come about in the fashion that it did.

The bill was brought to the floor under a set of rules (the "Suspension Calendar") that is set up for trivial measures like naming post offices, and which allows for minimal debate and no amendments, and thus in this case no way to adapt the bill to the actual needs of the armed forces (if now was even the right time to pass a draft bill, which I doubt many Dems think it is). This is apparently the only time in U.S. history a bill of any consequence has been brought to a House vote under these rules. Rangel quite correctly rejected the whole affair as a GOP ploy and called for people to vote nay. Even Bill Frist declared the whole affair a "non-issue", and stated that the Senate would not be considering their version of the bill.

Whatever one may think of the motivations behind the original submission of the bill or the chances that either candidate will be forced into the position of calling for a draft, these circumstances have almost no bearing on why the bill came to a vote this month, which is pretty much pure politics on the part of DeLay.

Last edited: Nov 1, 2004
14. Nov 1, 2004

### franznietzsche

To make my much shorter than it mgiht have been otherwise:

ALL politicians are scum. Democrats, republicans itmakes no difference. Every last one of them is after power for their own benefit.

Origin of "Politics":

-The greek root Poly means many.
-Ticks are blood sucking creatures

Poly-ticks becomes politics, or many blood sucking creatures.