Charlie Rangel is calling for the draft, yet again. The last time he did this, the GOP brought it to the floor for a vote, where it failed, 402-2. Rangel voted NAY.
“I don’t see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical,” he said.
Others blogging:
The Wood Shed
Wizbang
Rep. Rangel Will Seek to Reinstate Draft – The Liberty Lounge Political Forums
Bill’s Bites
Sister Toldjah
NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » Rangel again calls for reinstituting the draft
Perri Nelson’s Website
GWB was on the Air Craft Carrier and he thanked the troops present, and told them that their mission was accomplished, they were going home…
It’s nice that they all got to go home.
50- No, I am not referring to a CCR song, I am referring to just what I said, and no what I said was not debunked by Snopes. I am not claiming anything about Bush’ dad, though i would think that he could have pulled strings, just as Gore Sr did for his son…
So…
PROOF exists in the case of Gore, but nothing of the sort for Bush. My that boy got lucky.
55Where did you see that. Here is what I said: I am not claiming anything about Bush’ dad, though i would think that he could have pulled strings, just as Gore Sr did for his son
I’m willing to accept that Bush and Gore are both spoiled brats who got off easy during vietnam (though Gore at least left the US).
However, your attempts to foreground Gore’s failings over Bush’s looks a lot like party politics BS. If that’s not what you’re doing, just say so.
your attempts to foreground Gore’s failings Where did I do that? I asked you a question in #48. I also pointed out, after you mistakingly claimed it was Bush with a sock in his pants, that it was actually Gore that had to be airbrushed so as to look more manly. I have no idea if in fact Gore Sr. or Bush Sr pulled strings to cover their kids asses..but the bottom line is, both jr and jr did serve their country, not only during Vietnam, but also in Govt…
1) There were a lot of jokes about Bush on the aircraft carrier re: his less than authentic looking bulge. I actually wasn’t aware of the Gore thing, but it seems that jock stuffing has reached epidemic proportions.
2) I remain sceptical about Bush’s service (given who he served with and where he served); I’m certainly willing to be sceptical about Gore’s as well. I’ll leave it at that.
45 – Solarc – I wouldn’t reduce the comment to “so what.” Your discussion about WHO makes up the military is pointless. It is exactly made up of people who believe that the military is the best choice for them. It is people who believe in serving the nation and protecting the freedoms. It is people who wanted the benefits of joining the military without the risks (of military action). It is people who thought they were cut out for it and found out they are not. It is even people who were cajoled by a parent or recruiter. The bottom line in all the cases is that they had (and made) a choice.
Are you exploiting the guy who works the fryer at McDonalds because he makes minimum wage? Or the sacker at the grocery store? Both have the best job they can get at the moment. Do we exploit the guys who go out on the lobster boats because they risk there lives? The fact that a soldier risks his life changes nothing. It is not exploitive.
What do you mean by “the suffering of the underclasses?” Which socialist have you been reading?
My only point about the Middle Ages is that the knights/nobles did the fighting and the dying.
Are you exploiting the guy who works the fryer at McDonalds because he makes minimum wage? Or the sacker at the grocery store? Both have the best job they can get at the moment. Do we exploit the guys who go out on the lobster boats because they risk there lives? The fact that a soldier risks his life changes nothing. It is not exploitive.
I actually do believe that these situations are exploitative. Insofar as I support a corrupt system, I take part in this exploitation. I do, however, think that the problem is systemic. I can work against the system, though, and I try to.
The military seems particularly bad because of the nature of the work (potentially dying/killing) and the specific form of recruiting tactics (see post 30).
What do you mean by “the suffering of the underclasses?”Which socialist have you been reading?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John at the moment (see the In God We Trust on money posts).
What seems to be at the heart of your post is a cynicism of the sort “we see people dying, suffering, or whatever but we all know that the system isn’t going to change.” You then move from this non-position to the idea that the system is, therefore, not exploitative. I don’t agree with your basic premise (poor people don’t need to die on lobster boats or in the army), and the leap you make to health of the system is nonsensical.
I almost missed a milestone:
The war in Iraq has now lasted longer than the U.S.’s involvement in World War II.
We could drop 2 bombs and call it a war:roll:
61 – Solarc
Help us out and tell us who in the world isn’t being exploited? Does a husband exploit his wife for sex? What value does the word have if everyone is being exploited? How do you make it through the day feeling like you are exploiting the guy at the gas station, the busboy, carwash guys, lawn maintenance guys, the guys who picked the fruit and vegetables, truck drivers? Is everyone exploited except Bill Gates?
No offense, but my cynicism is with people who complain about something and do not forward an alternative. I have no cynicism for the system; I accept it for what it is. As they say, it is a horrible system, but better than all the others.
There are many assumptions in you final paragraph. My point is that exploitation denotes an unfairness or victimization which cannot be the case when free choice is involved. Blacks were exploited during slavery, but not the fry guy at McDonalds.
I don’t know whether the system is healthy or not. What makes it unhealthy in your opinion and what is the alternative?
Help us out and tell us who in the world isn’t being exploited? Does a husband exploit his wife for sex? What value does the word have if everyone is being exploited? How do you make it through the day feeling like you are exploiting the guy at the gas station, the busboy, carwash guys, lawn maintenance guys, the guys who picked the fruit and vegetables, truck drivers? Is everyone exploited except Bill Gates?
Husband and wife? I was specifically talking about economic exploitation, though I guess that if the husband only thinks about his pleasure, the wife never comes, and the only reason she stays in the marriage is because she doesn’t want to be out on the street, the marriage could be exploitative.
There are many assumptions in you final paragraph. My point is that exploitation denotes an unfairness or victimization which cannot be the case when free choice is involved. Blacks were exploited during slavery, but not the fry guy at McDonalds.
Obviously, free choice is a relative term. If someone puts a gun to your head and says “Move and your dead,” you’re still free to move (and die). In slavery, the slaves were “free” to revolt, to run, etcetera. Many did, some got away, most didn’t. Is the single mother of five who works a job at McDonalds and another at the grocery store and also cleans houses actually making a “free” choice. The alternative is to go hungry, to see her family go hungry, to send her kids to school in rags. I guess that this isn’t violent death, but “free choice” ought to be qualified.
I don’t know whether the system is healthy or not. What makes it unhealthy in your opinion and what is the alternative?
What makes it unhealthy is that while the woman I mentioned above does her work, someone sends his idiot son to Yale because he inherited the money to do so; a CEO makes 1,000 times as much as his workers because he was born into the right family, etc.
What’s the alternative?
Here are some passages I posted on another page:
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”(Matthew 19:24. Similar verses are in Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25).
“All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.”(Acts 2:44).
“So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.”(Luke 14:33)
I suppose that that makes me a dirty socialist and everyone can now stop listening.
65- again you bring up Bible versus that don’t even pertain to what we are talking about.. will tell you once again that they did not become anymore intelligent to your arguement than the first time they were brought up.
What makes it unhealthy is that while the woman I mentioned above does her work, someone sends his idiot son to Yale because he inherited the money to do so; a CEO makes 1,000 times as much as his workers because he was born into the right family, etc. You use an example of woman that is single and has 5 children and think you have made a point against inheritance? Why is a single mother having kids she can’t afford? I was not ever able to have children and I don’t ever recall a neighbor saying, here take one of mine, I still have 4 more, but I do know that I am forced to pay for that woman that put herself into a situation in which she couldn’t send her kid to Yale.
The CEO has an education. The average factory worker is not holding a basic college degreee, let alone anything higher.
So I guess the alternative would be to stay in school, test well so that you can get as many grants as possible and keep your legs together…If done properly, a job in housekeeping will pay the bills while in school, and when she lands a fantastic job she will be able to have her 5 kids.
There is nothing exploitive about recruiting for the military. The soldiers aren’t manipulated. You keep leaving the GI Bill out of your arguement..why is that?
solarc, you are an inflammed, swollen, annoying hemmorhoid. You are just smart enough to be an annoyance, like a pest that bothers others but doesn’t know when to quit.
Stop trying to tell other people what Jesus thought/thinks. You’re probably another atheist, so just STFU on the subject of religion.
41.
I’m still a little foggy on what exactly it means to have “served in Iraq”when we’re referring to politicians. Is this the same thing as when Bush fought bravely in Vietnam? A “military career”certainly helps one to become a politician, but politicians with actual military careers (e.g., Kerry and McCain) are becoming fewer and fewer. Instead, we have Bush prancing around in a flight suit with a sock shoved down his pants.
It is exactly what it means- one is Major in the reserves in a company deployed to Iraq during the curent war, the other is a Leiutenant, also deployed. Both were/are (a I am not sure if they have left yet) in country and serves honorably.
There are honarable folks on a local level that serve- these fellows are Ohio Congressmen. The differnce I think is that since these fellows are local politicians, they are still have honorable intentions. The contrast is that folks like Murtha, McCain and Kerry may once have served honorably, but are no longer honorable people. Their past service does not change that.
65 – Solarc
I agree with Peejz. Even if we accept the incorrect meaning you are attempting to use with these verses, it does not apply to the conversation.
The CONTEXT for your first Bible verse can be found in Mark 10:24 “Chidren how hard is it for them that TRUST in riches to enter into the kingdom of God.” The chapter is discussing a RULER who is asking Jesus “what shall I do to inheret eternal life.” Jesus asked him to sell everything and give it to the poor. The ruler went away “very sorrowful.” I do not believe Jesus is asking us to “give everything away.” He is telling us that money (the love of money) is not the path.
I read the Acts CHAPTER and see a church community/family that is sharing with other believers in need. I don’t read that as some socialist poster propaganda that we should all (the whole world) have the exact same existence.
Your Luke verse really needs context which can be found in verse 11…”For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” You are either ignorant of the greater meaning of Luke 2 or you are purposefully misleading. Go back and reread the chapter.
So many responses; so few arguments.
OK, nobody actually responded to my posts on the IGWT page. I assume, therefore, that you all agree that putting “God” on money is just the sort of sick mammon worship that Christ preached against.
I feel like the context for my response to Texas is mostly present on the IGWT page. Nonetheless, nothing that s/he wrote alters anything that I’ve cited: “So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.”(Luke 14:33). Texas responds with, “For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” So, the humble are exalted; the prideful are screwed. This hardly “corrects” what I’ve cited. In fact, the passage that I cited provides the content that makes the formal act of submission substantive; that is, if you want to humble yourself, here’s how. This should answer Texas’ first two questions.
As for Acts: It’s a model for those who want to live a Christian life and not just a cute story about a community that happens to share (but doesn’t need to). To be a Christian is to walk in the steps of those who, literally, walked in his steps. Thus (adjusted for present tense): “All who believe [ought to be] together and [have] all things in common; they [should] sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any [have] need.”(Acts 2:44). This is what it means to lead a Christian life.
Again, Jesus wasn’t much like Reagan–I hate to burst your bubble. If you’re suspicious of the passages that I’ve cited, I encourage you to read around the wider context. I also encourage you to read the other (debated) source texts and some of the commentaries on these texts (because a lot of the best etymological commentaries are in German, perhaps Matthias will translate). The words of Jesus himself are not terribly ambiguous (except, as I mentioned before, the claims to be God incarnate, which really only get going in the gospel of John). Look at a few different translations if you have trouble. If you get an intralinear version you can pick up some Greek while you’re at it.
I’m not surprised that Peejz wants me (and, I suspect, all of us) to stop talking about Jesus. If you feel no responsibility for the least of your brethren, Peejz, that’s between you and your conscience.
I’ve mentioned before that I support the GI Bill. It’s a reminder of how great government sponsored social programs can be.
“So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.â€
Please, give away your computer.
I couldn’t disagree more with your assessment.
I’m not surprised that Peejz wants me (and, I suspect, all of us) to stop talking about Jesus. If you feel no responsibility for the least of your brethren, Peejz, that’s between you and your conscience.
I’ve mentioned before that I support the GI Bill. It’s a reminder of how great government sponsored social programs can be.
1- I would prefer that if you are going to speak, that it be intelligently:roll:
2- Of course it works..you give, you get…it so much better than the welfare queen eating ring dings and ho hos.
71,72.
I know that you disagree and I at least suspect that both of you would self-identify as Christian. At least think about the substance of the words I’ve cited rather than dismissing them because you questionmy intentions. My ultimate intentions are immaterial. You can say that I’m unintelligent, a hemmoroid, probably an atheist, a liberal, a commie, whatever. The passages that I’ve cited are still there.
73
I don’t know you and have only read a few of your posts on this thread. This is simply a case of two people reading the same thing and coming to different conclusions.
73, but, bozo, your statements only apply and make sense to YOU. You are the fool who isn’t listening to anyone else.
70 – Solarc
I just reread your post and wanted to add one more thing. It is a fool’s game to base your life on ONE VERSE out of the Bible. Most verses could be contradicted with other verses if you ONLY extrapolated meaning from the single verse. You must glean meaning from the whole chapter.
That is why I responded to your Luke 14:33 with 14:11. The meaning of the chapter is not to “give up all your possessions,”it is to be humble in all situations.
I implore you to read the chapter with an open mind.
I apologize to those of you who are irritated by how far from the topic this part of the thread is going.
“I apologize to those of you who are irritated by how far from the topic this part of the thread is going.”
Not a problem for me. Although I disagree with how you both approach the Bible, your counter agruments (especially the one regarding Mark in post 69) have been very good. His post #70 did little to counter your position in post 69. His attempt (i.e. your verse does nothing to “correct” his) belies a misunderstanding of the point you are attmepting to make, or ignores it altogether. It isn’t the pont of one verse correct another, but the context of those two verses within the parable themselves. This means all of the verses taken as a whole, and not singularly. I agree with the paraphrased assessment that you give:
The chapter is discussing a RULER who is asking Jesus “what shall I do to inheret eternal life.”Jesus asked him to sell everything and give it to the poor. The ruler went away “very sorrowful.”I do not believe Jesus is asking us to “give everything away.”He is telling us that money (the love of money) is not the path.
In this case, personally approving of “IGWT” on a coin in no way invokes a love of money or of following said path. That said, doing so or not doing so is has nothing to do with the matters of the spirit at all. If the case were as Solarc suggested, then anyone using money would be sinful, including the poor.
76- That is exactly the point. Well said. Solarc is trying to argue that it is the right that uses the Bible to further their cause..He is a prime example of the left baiting the right with the Bible and not having the understanding of what it is he is saying.
74-78
I’m posting my response on the page dealing with IGWT on coins (so as not to completely kill the discussion of Rangel, etc.).
Where is the IGWT page?
80- go here