On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:57:44 -0400, "Al Reid"
wrote:

We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.

Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
place within a year. Bush, of course, will claim that the
military is responsible for it, not him, and then he will
claim that he never said that he wouldn't allow one. He
has lied about virtually every major decision or action
during his administration, hiding behind others whenever
he could, and he will go on doing it if he gets a chance.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:39:08 -0500, "Henry St.Pierre"
wrote:


11. Because of his stance on 'global warming' he's responsible for the
Florida hurricanes.


Nah, that's Clinton's fault (as just about everything else)

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:57:44 -0400, "Al Reid"
wrote:

We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want
a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.

Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
place within a year.

More FUD from the left. If you actually believe this, you really have your
head up your ass. By the way, only Congress can order a draft. Don't
worry. You'll have Kerry in the Senate to vote against it (after he votes
for it, I presume).

todd

Put up or shut up, where's your proof? Is Charlie Rangle (sp?) going to
get it passed?
Ron Moore

GregP wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:57:44 -0400, "Al Reid"
wrote:


We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.


Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
place within a year. Bush, of course, will claim that the
military is responsible for it, not him, and then he will
claim that he never said that he wouldn't allow one. He
has lied about virtually every major decision or action
during his administration, hiding behind others whenever
he could, and he will go on doing it if he gets a chance.

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:57:44 -0400, "Al Reid"
wrote:

We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want
a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.

Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
place within a year. Bush, of course, will claim that the
military is responsible for it, not him, and then he will
claim that he never said that he wouldn't allow one. He
has lied about virtually every major decision or action
during his administration, hiding behind others whenever
he could, and he will go on doing it if he gets a chance.

What, on God's green earth would possess you to spout such nonsense? Do you
really think that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth?

GregP wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:57:44 -0400, "Al Reid"
wrote:


We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.


Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
place within a year. Bush, of course, will claim that the
military is responsible for it, not him, and then he will
claim that he never said that he wouldn't allow one. He
has lied about virtually every major decision or action
during his administration, hiding behind others whenever
he could, and he will go on doing it if he gets a chance.

I'm not sure I buy that, Greg - I think it would work against him. Having a
professional army gives
Bush a lot more political flexibility - you can attack anywhere you want and
there won't be hundreds
of thousands of people in the streets screaming "you took my baby to fight in
that stinking place for
your own personal reasons that you won't even admit to!". No, I think that
reinstating a draft would open up
a real can of worms. I think all he really needs to do (or intents to do) is
to keep some sort of hopefully
constrainable military adventurism going somewhere, so that the people who are
susceptible to the
thought that voting against a leader during time of war is somehow disloyal, or
(my favorite from Al Reid )
we should somehow buy into the notion that we should vote for Bush because the
troops like him (moron)
will vote the right way.

Jim Kirby



--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email:
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

"James T. Kirby" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure I buy that, Greg - I think it would work against him. Having
a
professional army gives
Bush a lot more political flexibility - you can attack anywhere you want
and
there won't be hundreds
of thousands of people in the streets screaming "you took my baby to fight
in
that stinking place for
your own personal reasons that you won't even admit to!". No, I think
that
reinstating a draft would open up
a real can of worms. I think all he really needs to do (or intents to do)
is
to keep some sort of hopefully
constrainable military adventurism going somewhere, so that the people who
are
susceptible to the
thought that voting against a leader during time of war is somehow
disloyal, or
(my favorite from Al Reid )
we should somehow buy into the notion that we should vote for Bush because
the
troops like him (moron)
will vote the right way.

Jim Kirby




You lefites just can't form or axpress an opinion without calling names.
This makes you the moron. When you can't win on the facts or provide a
persuasive argument, you inevitable resort to name calling. This reflects
well on you.

Have a good one.
--

Al

--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email:
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

In article , GregP wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:55:10 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

My view of it is as below, written by someone I know.

[irrelevant diatribe snipped]

You certainly do a marvelous job of evading the issue. I repeat:


You asked a question, I answered you, you didn't
like or understand the answer (true, it *was* more
than one sentence long), so you insult it and insist
that I bring it down to a kindergarten level for you.
You need to try harder.

No, you didn't answer it at all, you evaded it. I repeat:

You claimed that the Republican leadership is fascist. Please identify, with
complete citations, which members of the Republican leadership have advocated
the system described above.

If you're unable to do that, then you should retract the claim.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

otforme (Charlie Self) wrote in message ...
mark notes:

purpose. Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?

I would say it depends upon what you are defending against. If someone
breaks into my house and threatens me with a single shot fowling rifle, I
would still prefer to have my semi-automatic, thank you very much.

There you go. And the extra rounds tear the **** out of someone else in the
house or in the neighborhood. No thanks. I'll stick with a 12 gauge with 0
buck.


At indoor ranges #8 will get the job done but won't overpenetrate
the target, walls, doors and so on.

--

FF

In article , GregP wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:57:44 -0400, "Al Reid"
wrote:

We have an all voluntary, highly trained military. We don't need or want a
draft. Since the military supports GWB by a 5 to 1
margin, you could support our troops by voting with our military.

Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
place within a year.

Helloooooooo! Reality check time again. The bills that were introduced in
Congress to reinstate the draft, were introduced by DEMOCRATS.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:59:14 GMT, "Al Reid"
wrote:


What, on God's green earth would possess you to spout such nonsense? Do you
really think that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth?


You accolates of Joe Goebbels have been operating on
that principle for the past 4 years.

If he wins, he won't give a damn about mothers complaining
about their dead children. And he won't have much choice,
unless he wants to admit defeat, like Reagan did in Lebanon,
and withdrawing, sending a message to terrorists that they
could push us out if they hurt us badly enough. And a surrogate
draft is already in place, manipulating National Guard units.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 10:45:47 -0400, "James T. Kirby"
wrote:

I'm not sure I buy that, Greg - I think it would work against him. Having a
professional army gives
Bush a lot more political flexibility - you can attack anywhere you want and
there won't be hundreds
of thousands of people in the streets screaming "you took my baby to fight in
that stinking place for
your own personal reasons that you won't even admit to!". No, I think that
reinstating a draft would open up
a real can of worms. I think all he really needs to do (or intents to do) is
to keep some sort of hopefully
constrainable military adventurism going somewhere, so that the people who are
susceptible to the
thought that voting against a leader during time of war is somehow disloyal, or
(my favorite from Al Reid )
we should somehow buy into the notion that we should vote for Bush because the
troops like him (moron)
will vote the right way.

Jim Kirby

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:18:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
place within a year.

Helloooooooo! Reality check time again. The bills that were introduced in
Congress to reinstate the draft, were introduced by DEMOCRATS.


Well, then, that is who Bush will hide behind when
he signs one. He won't really care, will he, as long
as the blame can be pushed on someone else.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:24:17 -0500, Prometheus
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:49:40 -0500, "Swingman" wrote:


"Prometheus" wrote in message

You know, I'm all for the second amendment, and I believe that any
responsible citizen has a right to own a firearm, but people like you
who buy into this hysterical crap I'm not so sure about. When folks
start running around like chicken little worried that the sky is
falling on their guns, I start to get worried that they're the type to
go shoot up a McDonald's because they think the martians read their
thoughts. Just take a deep breath, and think happy thoughts about
hunting- which, contrary to your [and Charleston Heston's] belief, is
really not in peril. And if some kind of second American Revolution
ever *does* come, your SKS and/or Winchester probably aren't going to
do much against an Apache helicopter anyway.

Apache helicopters don't seem to be having much impact on the Islamic
fundamentalist of the world. The point is "registration" ... if you know
where something, it is easier to confiscate it.

Who is trying to confiscate your guns? I've been hearing these dire
warnings since I was a tot, and none of it has ever happened- nor does
it even really seem to be in the works.


For historical precedence, check out the history of gun control in Great
Britain, Canada, and Australia just to name a few. They all started out
with "just registration", then progressed to more and more draconian
measures. Not sure where Canada stands now, a few years ago, instead of
registering long guns because gun owners were getting wise to that
ploy,they started requiring that ammunition be registered. Nose of the
camel indeed.

Interesting to both sides of the issue are statistics on Australia's
experience with gun control:

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:18:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
place within a year.

Helloooooooo! Reality check time again. The bills that were introduced in
Congress to reinstate the draft, were introduced by DEMOCRATS.


Well, then, that is who Bush will hide behind when
he signs one. He won't really care, will he, as long
as the blame can be pushed on someone else.

Wow. You have an answer for everything. Why do you bother? Nobody is going
to change your mind, and you're not going to change anyone else's mind.

GregP wrote:

If he wins, he won't give a damn about mothers complaining
about their dead children. And he won't have much choice,
unless he wants to admit defeat, like Reagan did in Lebanon,
and withdrawing, sending a message to terrorists that they
could push us out if they hurt us badly enough. And a surrogate
draft is already in place, manipulating National Guard units.

I think he will care, because it's a lot easier for him to perpetuate his
agenda if he ruffles as few feathers as
possible.

On the other hand, once people figure out that they are going off to fight
these wars basically as a
continual sideshow for nationalistic interests, the recruiting capabilities for
a volunteer army may indeed
dry up rapidly, and the strategy of using the National Guard as regular army
will certainly backfire sooner or later
too.

We'll see. Having a draft could be a good thing. We may need something like
that to get everyone to stand up and howl.
I wonder how many Republican congressmen will happily send their kids off to
war to serve the strategic interests of the
neocon warmongers?

Kirby




--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email:
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

GregP wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:18:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:


Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
place within a year.

Helloooooooo! Reality check time again. The bills that were introduced in
Congress to reinstate the draft, were introduced by DEMOCRATS.



Well, then, that is who Bush will hide behind when
he signs one. He won't really care, will he, as long
as the blame can be pushed on someone else.

A draft makes much more sense as a democratic principal. If a military action
is defensible morally and politically, than a democratic population should be
willing to fight it in an egalitarian manner. A draft of this nature should
allow no-one the opportunity to evade it. If Joe Senator from wherever, on either
side of the aisle, wants to
vote for this, then he better dammed well be ready to send his kid off (and
those of
his corporate buddies and lawyer friends), or he is a
lying, sniveling hypocrite.

A professional army is basically a set of hired guns. It's a job they choose.

Kirby



--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email:
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

James T. Kirby asks:

We'll see. Having a draft could be a good thing. We may need something like

that to get everyone to stand up and howl.
I wonder how many Republican congressmen will happily send their kids off to
war to serve the strategic interests of the
neocon warmongers?

About the same number as sent their kids off to war during 'Nam. Check with
GWB's daddy to see how influential people reacted.

Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce

James T. Kirby states:


A draft makes much more sense as a democratic principal. If a military
action
is defensible morally and politically, than a democratic population should be
willing to fight it in an egalitarian manner. A draft of this nature should
allow no-one the opportunity to evade it. If Joe Senator from wherever, on
either
side of the aisle, wants to
vote for this, then he better dammed well be ready to send his kid off (and
those of
his corporate buddies and lawyer friends), or he is a
lying, sniveling hypocrite.


Yes, well, take option #2, because option #1 has NEVER happened.

Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce

"James T. Kirby"
GregP wrote:

If he wins, he won't give a damn about mothers complaining
about their dead children. And he won't have much choice,
unless he wants to admit defeat, like Reagan did in Lebanon,
and withdrawing, sending a message to terrorists that they
could push us out if they hurt us badly enough. And a surrogate
draft is already in place, manipulating National Guard units.

I think he will care, because it's a lot easier for him to perpetuate his
agenda if he ruffles as few feathers as
possible.

On the other hand, once people figure out that they are going off to fight
these wars basically as a
continual sideshow for nationalistic interests, the recruiting capabilities for
a volunteer army may indeed
dry up rapidly, and the strategy of using the National Guard as regular army
will certainly backfire sooner or later
too.

We'll see. Having a draft could be a good thing. We may need something like
that to get everyone to stand up and howl.
I wonder how many Republican congressmen will happily send their kids off to
war to serve the strategic interests of the
neocon warmongers?


How many spineless cowards like you would have freed Germany or Japan?

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message ...
"James T. Kirby"
GregP wrote:

If he wins, he won't give a damn about mothers complaining
about their dead children. And he won't have much choice,
unless he wants to admit defeat, like Reagan did in Lebanon,
and withdrawing, sending a message to terrorists that they
could push us out if they hurt us badly enough. And a surrogate
draft is already in place, manipulating National Guard units.

I think he will care, because it's a lot easier for him to perpetuate his
agenda if he ruffles as few feathers as
possible.

On the other hand, once people figure out that they are going off to fight
these wars basically as a
continual sideshow for nationalistic interests, the recruiting capabilities for
a volunteer army may indeed
dry up rapidly, and the strategy of using the National Guard as regular army
will certainly backfire sooner or later
too.

We'll see. Having a draft could be a good thing. We may need something like
that to get everyone to stand up and howl.
I wonder how many Republican congressmen will happily send their kids off to
war to serve the strategic interests of the
neocon warmongers?


How many spineless cowards like you would have freed Germany or Japan?


Why Fletus, that represented such a leap from the previous post that I
considered sending a reply suggesting that you just go **** yourself,
but then I thought better of it.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:13:45 -0500, "James T. Kirby"
wrote:

I wonder how many Republican congressmen will happily send their kids off to
war to serve the strategic interests of the
neocon warmongers?


Michael Moore answered that question very effectively:
none of them. Just about all of them are chickenhawks,
anyway: war is great, as long as they don't go.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:32:27 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:


How many spineless cowards like you would have freed Germany or Japan?


... he says, as he sits safely behind his computer screen, 10-12
thousand miles away from the war he is hyping. They could
use a lot of help over there from you: washing dishes, cleaning
latrines, driving a truck, guarding a facility. You think this war
is a Good Thing, why aren't you over there helping out ???
The truth is, when push comes to shove you only believe in what
you can send others to die for.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:28:33 GMT, "mark" wrote:

Wow. You have an answer for everything. Why do you bother? Nobody is going
to change your mind, and you're not going to change anyone else's mind.


Yeah, but I'm right :-)

[and all of you war lovers are war lovers here, hiding out safely
in your homes, while the action is over there, where lots of
people are dying for your bellicose beliefs. As long as you're
hiding out here, instead of helping out over there, you have
zero credibility.]

On the other hand, once people figure out that they are going off to
fight
these wars basically as a continual sideshow for nationalistic
interests, the recruiting capabilities for
a volunteer army may indeed dry up rapidly, and the strategy of using
the National Guard as regular army
will certainly backfire sooner or later too.

It will certainly weed out the volunteers that only wanted to volunteer for
the free college bucks, and not the possibility that they may have to go
fight somewhere.

"GregP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:28:33 GMT, "mark" wrote:

Wow. You have an answer for everything. Why do you bother? Nobody is
going
to change your mind, and you're not going to change anyone else's mind.


Yeah, but I'm right :-)

[and all of you war lovers are war lovers here, hiding out safely
in your homes, while the action is over there, where lots of
people are dying for your bellicose beliefs. As long as you're
hiding out here, instead of helping out over there, you have
zero credibility.]

Yeah, but you can use that argument for just about everything. You're not
over there either, so everything you say is based on second-hand
information, therefore by your argument, you have zero credibility as well.
I believe war is bad, but sometimes necessary. Was this war necessary?
That, I don't have the answer to. Nor do I have the classified information
that was evaluated (or ignored) to make the decision to go to war in this
way, at this time.

"Jim Kirby"
"Fletis Humplebacker"
"James T. Kirby"

We'll see. Having a draft could be a good thing. We may need something like
that to get everyone to stand up and howl.
I wonder how many Republican congressmen will happily send their kids off to
war to serve the strategic interests of the
neocon warmongers?


How many spineless cowards like you would have freed Germany or Japan?


Why Fletus, that represented such a leap from the previous post that I
considered sending a reply suggesting that you just go **** yourself,
but then I thought better of it.

Your comments were small minded, nothing honest or fair
about them so save us the indignation.

"GregP"
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 07:32:27 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:


How many spineless cowards like you would have freed Germany or Japan?


... he says, as he sits safely behind his computer screen, 10-12
thousand miles away from the war he is hyping.


That what they thought in the trade towers too.



They could
use a lot of help over there from you: washing dishes, cleaning
latrines, driving a truck, guarding a facility. You think this war
is a Good Thing,


No, a necessary thing. What's your plan?


why aren't you over there helping out ???
The truth is, when push comes to shove you only believe in what
you can send others to die for.


I've done my time but would again if necessary. Unlike yourself
I'd die for my principles, people like you existed before WW2
and said the same things about Reagan.

mark writes:

I believe war is bad, but sometimes necessary. Was this war necessary?
That, I don't have the answer to. Nor do I have the classified information
that was evaluated (or ignored) to make the decision to go to war in this
way, at this time.


The information was not and is not classified, I'm sure to GWB's chagrin. He's
admitted is intelligence was faulty.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pr...ss10_21_04.pdf

Charlie Self
"Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a
pleasure." Ambrose Bierce

GregP wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:28:33 GMT, "mark" wrote:


Wow. You have an answer for everything. Why do you bother? Nobody is going
to change your mind, and you're not going to change anyone else's mind.



Yeah, but I'm right :-)

Here, here !


JK

In article , GregP wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:18:52 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
place within a year.

Helloooooooo! Reality check time again. The bills that were introduced in
Congress to reinstate the draft, were introduced by DEMOCRATS.


Well, then, that is who Bush will hide behind when
he signs one. He won't really care, will he, as long
as the blame can be pushed on someone else.

Bush is already on record as stating that there will not be a draft while he
is President. It's the Democrats who are trying to reinstate the draft, not
Bush, not anyone else in the Republican party. And yet the lying hypocrites on
the left accuse the Republicans of trying to bring it back.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

DamnYankee wrote in message ...

Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?


Not to be too persnickety but I don't think you'll find a guarantee of
the righ tto self defense in the Constitution. The second Amendment
does not refer to personal self-defense.

Which goes to show that there are widely recognized fundamental human
rights not enumerated or explicitely protected in the Constitution.

--

FF

In article , (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:
DamnYankee wrote in message
...

Don't you find that contrary to your constitutional right to
defend yourself?


Not to be too persnickety but I don't think you'll find a guarantee of
the righ tto self defense in the Constitution. The second Amendment
does not refer to personal self-defense.

At least one *state* Constitution *does* (Indiana): "The people shall have the
right to keep and bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
Consequently, our ownership and concealed-carry laws are pretty permissive,
and many of our prosecutors and judges are fairly tough on those who abuse
that right -- which is IMHO exactly as it should be, in both respects.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 01:56:38 GMT, "mark" wrote:

[and all of you war lovers are war lovers here, hiding out safely
in your homes, while the action is over there, where lots of
people are dying for your bellicose beliefs. As long as you're
hiding out here, instead of helping out over there, you have
zero credibility.]

Yeah, but you can use that argument for just about everything. You're not
over there either, so everything you say is based on second-hand
information, therefore by your argument, you have zero credibility as well.


I'm not talking about "information," I'm talking about you backing
up your happy war talk with action. It's a lot easier to watch
others die while you sit here playing the Great American Couch
Patriot.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:36:24 -0800, "Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 18:36:24 -0800, in rec.woodworking you wrote:


I've done my time but would again if necessary.

They could use you right now, Mr Patriot, and you don't
even have to be in the military to help out. But you won't,
will you, it's a lot safer to watch others die.

Unlike yourself I'd die for my principles,

Well, then, go ahead and do it: I'm not stopping you !
But you won't, will you, it's a lot safer to watch others
die.

"GregP"
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote:

I've done my time but would again if necessary.


They could use you right now, Mr Patriot, and you don't
even have to be in the military to help out. But you won't,
will you, it's a lot safer to watch others die.


Your words are the words of a coward sir. You don't fool
anyone here.


Unlike yourself I'd die for my principles,


Well, then, go ahead and do it: I'm not stopping you !
But you won't, will you, it's a lot safer to watch others
die.


I noticed that you said nothing about your military experience.
All you ever had was slander and propaganda. Good men have
died for your freedom to do so.

In article , GregP wrote:
Based on Bush's record of being "on record," there will be a
draft within a year if he's reelected.

I repeat, it's the DEMOCRATS who are trying to bring back the draft, not the
Republicans.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , otforme (Charlie Self) wrote:
Doug Miller escapes filters long enough to state:
Nevertheless, if Bush is reelected, there will be a draft in
place within a year.

Helloooooooo! Reality check time again. The bills that were introduced in
Congress to reinstate the draft, were introduced by DEMOCRATS.


Well, then, that is who Bush will hide behind when
he signs one. He won't really care, will he, as long
as the blame can be pushed on someone else.

Bush is already on record as stating that there will not be a draft while he
is President. It's the Democrats who are trying to reinstate the draft, not
Bush, not anyone else in the Republican party. And yet the lying hypocrites
on
the left accuse the Republicans of trying to bring it back.


Rangel supposedly was demonstrating something or other. Given that politicians
are idiots, it is not a good idea to take their efforts at demonstration too
seriously--IIRC, this one had to do with Congress's unwillingness to support a
draft at this moment.

No matter how you try to spin it, Charlie, the fact remains that the only
bills in Congress to reinstate the draft were introduced by Democrats. The
lying hypocrites on the left then go on to claim that Bush is trying to bring
back the draft, when in fact *they* are the ones who are trying to.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.