Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Berry Hunter
Dissent. Look at it as an opportunity to stick them with Detroit, Buffalo and Grand Forks, ND.
BH

Well, if the Canadians won't take them, I say we stick the native americans with them unless they agree to fork over some of their casino revenues to pay their fair share.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

But part of Rangel's point is that the current system is absurdly unfair to certain groups who are most inclined to join the military and suffer for our nation's choices.

Hello

This point (of Rangel's) is hogwash.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
But the military leaders think that an all volunteer force is a better force. They don't want conscripts. They want volunteers for a reason.

Sure, now that you are outside the age group that would be affected by this. Were you for it when you were 18?

If this policy of forced labor were implemented, would you agree to let them at least drink legally to help them deal with it?

Puhleeze. I rebelled at 15, so by 18 I had learned to just do what I was told.

The military would be getting "volunteers" my way. They'd be volunteering for carrying a gun instead of picking up deer shit in Yellowstone or scrubbing rocks in Valdez for 3 months.

Sort of like the choice an inner-city kids has at 18. You know, sling rocks and probably get killed by 30, or join the military (if they don't have a felony record already). If that's a choice, I don't see why my scenario isn't.

And yeah, our drinking laws are as fucked up as our drug laws.

Hello

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Rangel.

Hagel (R-Neb.)

[Not Me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Interesting article in today's WaPo about growing concern in Congress over the need for a supplemental appropriation for the troops.

Hint - if you don't want to register and sign in, you can access the article from Google:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr20.html

This is a tough time for Bush, et al. His second term depends on Iraq.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Initially I thought what you meant about "dying for Halliburton" is that Halliburton employees over in Iraq doing military support stuff (that in, e.g., WWI and WWII was done by the actual military) are getting killed, and of course thought "but have they assumed the risk?" Then I realized you were talking about draftees dying. Right?

They, I think, were talking about draftees dying.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Sort of like the choice an inner-city kids has at 18. You know, sling rocks and probably get killed by 30, or join the military (if they don't have a felony record already). If that's a choice, I don't see why my scenario isn't.

Point is, that's who the military gets in a draft, but not in the present volunteer situation.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This point (of Rangel's) is hogwash.

Well its certainly not fair to consider in a narrow light. The fact is, there are tremendous geographic, ethnic and income concentrations in the military.

And why would it be a bad thing for Americans to more uniformly suffer the risks when they (as a nation) support a war?

Bottom line for me is that I don't care if infantry manpower ends up increasing. I'd rather just see some sort of shared and equalizing contribution to society from some of the groups and individuals that historically don't contribute anything near what they draw.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Saving your taxdollars (or Iraqis their oil revenue):

As Josh Marshall points out (hi bilmore!), the CPA thoughtfully borrowed the code for its website from the Brookings Institution's website.

Also, Marshall reveals that he is actually a Penske sock. Who isn't?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'd rather just see some sort of shared and equalizing contribution to society from some of the groups and individuals that historically don't contribute anything near what they draw.

I doubt a "conscript the welfare ranks" theme would fly in this political climate.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Puhleeze. I rebelled at 15, so by 18 I had learned to just do what I was told.

Sounds like college must have sucked for you. It was a sex/drug/alcohol feast for me.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The military would be getting "volunteers" my way. They'd be volunteering for carrying a gun instead of picking up deer shit in Yellowstone or scrubbing rocks in Valdez for 3 months.

The military brass disagrees with you.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Sort of like the choice an inner-city kids has at 18. You know, sling rocks and probably get killed by 30, or join the military (if they don't have a felony record already). If that's a choice, I don't see why my scenario isn't.

Life isn't fair. The fact that life isn't fair isn't a reason to create a forced labor program for our youth.

So, were you for this type of program when you were 18? I wasn't and I bet you weren't either.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Point is, that's who the military gets in a draft, but not in the present volunteer situation.

They get those kids now (among other groups concentrations). Just not many kids from my near-suburban lily-white democratic neighborhood.

And I'm absolutely certain that a premise for Rangel back then (6 or 8 months ago?) was that there should not be exceptions for education or money or whatever else was used previously. I promise you, even if I had 500 other reasons to spit on the guy, his thinking on this came across as sincere and fair.

Hello

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
And why would it be a bad thing for Americans to more uniformly suffer the risks when they (as a nation) support a war?

Bottom line for me is that I don't care if infantry manpower ends up increasing. I'd rather just see some sort of shared and equalizing contribution to society from some of the groups and individuals that historically don't contribute anything near what they draw.

Hello

I especially like the fact that leaders would be making decisions about their own children, not abstract kids. Isn't there only one member of Congress with a child in the military?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Also, Marshall reveals that he is actually a Penske sock. Who isn't?

Not me.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me


Bottom line for me is that I don't care if infantry manpower ends up increasing. I'd rather just see some sort of shared and equalizing contribution to society from some of the groups and individuals that historically don't contribute anything near what they draw.

Hello

Well, I'll sign up for your plan if you sign up for mine of a uniform head tax to replace the income tax.