Rangel Calls For The Draft Again..I guess 402-2 Did Nothing To Sway His Thinking!
By: Pam On: Nov/19/06 - 79 Comments
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
November 19, 2006 - 04:06 PM on November 19th, 2006
Hypcritical says Rangel?
Didn’t he support Clinton cutting the military by 800,000, including civilians needed to support the military personel?
That’s hypocritical, if you ask me.
November 19, 2006 - 04:20 PM on November 19th, 2006
Thanks for the tip. I linked to you!:smile:
In 03′, Rangel said he was doing this because he could, and not because we needed it. Either he needs to vote for what he suggests or he needs to shut up!
November 19, 2006 - 04:46 PM on November 19th, 2006
“Thanks for the tip. I linked to you!”
I feel honored- thank you Peejz for linking to my humble little page.
November 19, 2006 - 08:42 PM on November 19th, 2006
Isn’t it funny that the very party that undermined our efforts in Vietnam, and condemned millions to die at the hands of the communists, are now going against the volunteer military by forced conscription? There is no greater way to increase casualties in any war than to forcibly conscribe people to fight in it. Unless people believe in the cause for which they are fighting, they are far less likely to become proficient in the skills necessary to do so. Their attitude is also detrimental to morale. Of course what have the Democrats done lately that hasn’t been detrimental to morale?
November 20, 2006 - 09:16 AM on November 20th, 2006
Me thinks chaucky rangle needs to be sent to the mental institution for the politicly nuts crazy and rediculous:razz:
November 20, 2006 - 07:53 PM on November 20th, 2006
Oh my God. Can I just say what an idiot Representative Rangel is? I listened to his comments today and it made me remember why I can never be a Democrat.
I ask all of you Republicans to get your party back to the pragmatic, realistic, fiscally conservative, effective party it used to be so that America is not subject to idiot Democrats.
President Reagan. God bless that man. President Bush is no President Reagan.
November 20, 2006 - 08:00 PM on November 20th, 2006
“President Reagan. God bless that man. President Bush is no President Reagan.”
Amen to that Zelda. This country..no this world…needs another man like Reagan fpr President.
November 22, 2006 - 10:16 AM on November 22nd, 2006
I assume that the whole call for the draft is for rhetorical effect. Essentially it’s a way of saying that since the great majority of casualties are suffered by those from the lower or lower-middle class (because folks from these classes are most likely to enlist in the first place), the wealthy politicians who actually decide to go to war should face the prospect of their own children dying.
The argument, as I see it:
If little Johnny (or, God forbid, Jenny) will have to give up that scholarship to Yale to dodge bullets in the desert, maybe Johnny’s senator daddy (and the lobbyist who owns Johnny’s senator daddy) will rethink his support for the war.
November 22, 2006 - 10:30 AM on November 22nd, 2006
Solarc,
Just stuff your liberal hate and condescension. I have met more military officeers and enlisted that are way smarter and educated than you are. The military is only lower and middle class because that is what tha pay scale is.
Let me remind you that under a DEMOCRAT run Congress the enlisted were paid so poorly that many were on welfare. That is your condesension in action.
No, put Rangel in Baghdad without bodyguards and with the announcement that no one will pay a ransom for him. We’ll see if his cut and run “solution” actually will bring peace to Iraq.
Oh, the military is all volunteer now. You know, they sign up of their own free will. Just like Pat Tillman and his brother. Just like JFK did, and George H. Wl Bush did, as well as the President.
Now tell me how you have other priorities.
November 22, 2006 - 10:57 AM on November 22nd, 2006
God, you’re a terrible writer. I’m not convinced that you’re the person to judge who’s “way smarter and educated” than anyone.
Nevertheless…
At issue isn’t the pay in the military, it’s the social strata from which the enlistees are drawn. The point is that the rich should also carry the burden. Things have changed since the days of Bush I and his idiot son, and they’ve changed even more since the days of Kennedy.
The military is indeed completely volunteer (though “stop-loss” has changed the picture a bit). Nonetheless, the military does nearly all of its recruiting (at least, its recruiting for cannon-fodder) in poor neighborhoods and at poor schools. I can provide you with some statistics on this though I doubt that you’d be interested. “Facts” are just another name for “liberal hate,” right?
The bottom line is that leaders from one class make life and death decisions about another.
November 22, 2006 - 12:22 PM on November 22nd, 2006
10, Your arrogance drips from every word you write. You propaganda would be better served if you stuck it up your …! All your petulantly want is to punish Bush by having his kids killed. That is your bottom line. This crap about having the rich serve is just camoflage for your real agenda.
You hate Bush for beating you people at the polls twice. You also denigrate the military in an effort to make yourself better than they. It isn’t working. You are just a loser trying to justify your miserable and worthless existance by stating ther others are inferior to you.
Your efforts failed. You are as big a failure as shitto.
Go back to San Francisco and protect yourself with disarmed police. I will laugh heartily when you get attacked and plead for help.
November 22, 2006 - 12:42 PM on November 22nd, 2006
PCD,
You haven’t responded to the substance of my comments.
Ergo, you are a fucktard.
Get offline and read a book.
November 22, 2006 - 12:44 PM on November 22nd, 2006
12, shitto, your shrink is waiting for you. You are late for your appointment.
November 22, 2006 - 12:46 PM on November 22nd, 2006
13, listen, bozo, I addressed your real points and you have no rejoinder, nor a defense. You have been exposed for what you are, a George Soros Kool-aid drinker. Go play on Daily Kos with the other juvenile delinquents.
November 22, 2006 - 01:03 PM on November 22nd, 2006
PCD,
You responded to my statement that the military is made up of the underclass by saying that I secretly want Bush’s kids dead. Whether or not that’s true (and it isn’t–I’d much rather see them on “Girls Gone Wild” than in bodybags), it doesn’t constitute a response. If you can’t understand the difference, than you’re an even bigger moron than I thought.
Why don’t you go back to sniffing glue and molesting the retarded kids from the neighborhood
November 22, 2006 - 01:13 PM on November 22nd, 2006
Solarc,
“Why don’t you go back to sniffing glue and molesting the retarded kids from the neighborhood ”
Is that your usual occupation when you aren’t making a fool of yourself on the internet?
You seem to think that you are superior to everyone. You aren’t. You can’t hack people getting back in your face and letting you have it.
You are just another dilitante who can’t do anything other than pontificate on what you know not of.
If Rangel should get his draft, I pray you are the first one drafted and shot for desertion.
November 22, 2006 - 01:37 PM on November 22nd, 2006
You are just another dilitante who can’t do anything other than pontificate on what you know not of.
Way to take on the issues douchebag.
Is it a good thing that the army is made up of the underclass? Do you think you could get your finger out of that kid long enough to type an answer to that one? Do ya, boy? Do ya?
I have to go out with some of my grown-up friends. Maybe I’ll check back later.
November 22, 2006 - 01:53 PM on November 22nd, 2006
18, listen, creep, I know you had to go to your NAMBLA meeting, but the Armed forces are not made up of the under classes. I’d like you to say that to Col. Werner Hellmer’s face. Hellmer was the Marine JAG who prosecuted and got a conviction of desertion for Bobby Garwood, noted Viet Nam deserter.
Sol, it is good for you to get out of your parents’ basement once in a while, even if it is to score more drugs.
November 22, 2006 - 02:41 PM on November 22nd, 2006
The Heritage Foundation did a study on the question of US Army enlistee demographics.
Their conclusion: “This evidence directly contradicts Representative Rangel’s claim that underÂprivileged Americans are the source of military manpower and that the privileged are underrepresented.”
Read their report for yourself. It puts Rangel’s blather into the toilet, where it belongs.
November 22, 2006 - 04:17 PM on November 22nd, 2006
Thanks Robert- I’ve been looking for that for a while.
November 22, 2006 - 04:31 PM on November 22nd, 2006
the stench of testosterone in here is enough to make “Ahnold” gag.
November 22, 2006 - 04:42 PM on November 22nd, 2006
I do not accept the findings of any known right-wing studies. Heritage is funded by the vast Right-wing conspiracy. I believe Rep. Rangel; Solarc is right.
Rep. Rangel has been around far longer, and knows much more about the situation than any of the armchair warmongers.
We’ve known since the Vietnam war that it was the poor, the minorities that populated the military. And of course disproportionately suffer the casualties. We know this; it is known in Academia, everyone just knows it to be the case. That’s just the way it is.
November 22, 2006 - 08:04 PM on November 22nd, 2006
TedintheShed…
“President Reagan. God bless that man. President Bush is no President Reagan.”
“Amen to that Zelda. This country..no this world:needs another man like Reagan for President.”
President Reagan removed our troops from Lebanon after a deadly terrorist attack. Perhaps he is to blame for 9-11????? Yet he still managed to defeat Communism. He made a strategic retreat from terrorists and is still probably the best President of out lifetimes. Go figure.
President Bush is no President Reagan.
November 22, 2006 - 08:15 PM on November 22nd, 2006
“President Reagan removed our troops from Lebanon after a deadly terrorist attack. Perhaps he is to blame for 9-11?????”
I’ve heard that assertion a couple of times, and I sure would like someone to make the point.
I don’t see it.
Yet he still managed to defeat Communism.
For the most part- he wasn’t singley responsible for it, but certainly was one of the key players and was the closer.
He made a strategic retreat from terrorists and is still probably the best President of out lifetimes. Go figure.
That is a specious argument. many facts have changed in the last 20 years.
November 22, 2006 - 10:41 PM on November 22nd, 2006
The facts are that the members of Congress, as a whole, have a higher percentage of offspring serving in the military than the populace as a whole. The military has a higher high school graduation rate than the general populace by a significant number. Why? Because they don’t take high school drop outs anymore. They haven’t in years. If you don’t have a diploma or a GED, you simply do not get in. Even the Army that has the lowest standards of the bunch will not allow people without high school diplomas in. Hell there were questions raised when I recently tried to reenlist as to why I didn’t have a high school diploma or a GED, and I had been an OFFICER. The answer was that I went to college a year early and have a BA from a major university. When I was in ROTC in college, they never asked about a high school diploma because I was a college sophomore before I even spoke to anyone at the ROTC department.
You can argue all that you want that Rangel is right. He isn’t. A draft will do nothing but increase the body count. The soldiers don’t want draftees. Want to see the military take a turn for the worst, start drafting people. They don’t accept druggies, they don’t accept serious delinquents, they don’t accept criminals. With a draft, they’d be forced to accept all of the above.
November 23, 2006 - 02:11 AM on November 23rd, 2006
Take a look at where the recruiting centers are located. Take a look at which high schools the recruiters attend. The preferred areas are low-income.
Nobody said that the troops are stupid and people on this blog should stop assuming that when anyone says that the troops are from the underclass this means that they’re morons.
What’s at issue is economic strata, not relative intelligence.
November 23, 2006 - 03:06 AM on November 23rd, 2006
See post 20. Duh…
November 23, 2006 - 04:43 AM on November 23rd, 2006
28.
The heritage foundation? Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of “free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”
At least find me a source that pretends to be non-biased.
November 23, 2006 - 04:55 AM on November 23rd, 2006
On the subject of recruiting tactics:
Channel 11 News in Houston revealed that a local Army recruiter was caught on tape, as he left a message threatening a young man
with arrest if he didn’t come into the recruiting station.
Sgt. Thomas Kelt left this message on that young man’s cell phone:
“Hey Chris, this is Sgt. Kelt with the Army man. I think we got disconnected. Okay, I know you were on your cell probably and just had a bad connection or something like that. I know you didn’t hang up on me. Anyway, by federal law you got an appointment with me at 2 o’clock this afternoon at Greenspoint Mall, okay? That’s the Greenspoint Mall Army Recruiting Station at 2 o’clock. You fail to appear and we’ll have a warrant. Okay? So give me a call back.”
To listen:
http://www.khou.com/images/0505/voicemail.wav
November 23, 2006 - 05:13 AM on November 23rd, 2006
“Hey Chris, this is Sgt. Kelt with the Army man. I think we got disconnected. Okay, I know you were on your cell probably and just had a bad connection or something like that. I know you didn’t hang up on me. Anyway, by federal law you got an appointment with me at 2 o’clock this afternoon at Greenspoint Mall, okay? That’s the Greenspoint Mall Army Recruiting Station at 2 o’clock. You fail to appear and we’ll have a warrant. Okay? So give me a call back.â€
November 23, 2006 - 05:25 AM on November 23rd, 2006
The following link includes statistics on “The Mathematics of the Military and Military Recruitment.” It seems pertinent to the discussion.
http://www.radicalmath.org/main.php?id=military
Regardless, I’m sure that we’ve all had some experience with this topic. I graduated HS right around the time that Gulf War Pt.1 was taking off. I went to a HS in a poor rural area in the midwest and it was constantly crawling with recruiters. I didn’t join, though a lot of my friends did, and I ended up receiving a scholarship from a fairly prestigious school in the East. I assumed that all of the students at my university–most of whom were wealthy and had attended private schools or public schools in rich neighborhoods–would have had the same experiences. Not only had they not experienced what I had, the whole process was completely foreign to them. A couple of them said that they thought that it was “probably illegal” (obviously, it’s not). The only student who shared my experience was, big surprise, a black kid who had grown up in Queens.
November 23, 2006 - 08:41 AM on November 23rd, 2006
Take a look at where the recruiting centers are located. Take a look at which high schools the recruiters attend. The preferred areas are low-income. I live in a wealthy suburb and the recruiters go to all the schools…They can and do recruit at public schools.
What is the point you are trying to make Solar? You are aware of the GI Bill aren’t you? This country would not have seen the prosperity it did after WWII if not for that wonderful little piece of legislation that affords people to better themselves.
Are you angry that that there are poor people that take advantage of an opportunity in which they work for the benefit?
November 23, 2006 - 11:47 AM on November 23rd, 2006
right on Solarc and knippel. I mean solarc your right on target heritage is a right wing thing you cant trust the numbers in that report look at all the research they did but it doesnt mean anything i know your right you know more than heritage does and your not biased i just know it beacsue your a kewl dood maybe i can be your pal too im knippels pal already because hes a kewl dood too putting these right wingers in their place
wow man like solarc you graduated from high school late early 90s you know a lot man you got more expeirence than any of these right wingers here you know it all man i bet your almost as smart as knippel
November 23, 2006 - 12:56 PM on November 23rd, 2006
33
My point was that those who decide to go to war make their decision without the fear that their loved ones might have to pay the ultimate price.
That was it.
I support the GI Bill. It’s an excellent reminder of how sucessful government programs can be.
November 23, 2006 - 09:15 PM on November 23rd, 2006
35- and you failed to make the point. There are members of the Senate, Congress, and Pentagon, that have kids in the military. Our military is volunteer, made of of brave men and women that put country before self.
November 24, 2006 - 11:06 AM on November 24th, 2006
Military recruiters know that their lifeblood is the underprivileged.
The heritage foundation just cooked the NPPs numbers.
Here’s the NPP response: http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=183&Itemid=61
I’m sure you’ll want to link to it so the readers of this blog can thoughtfully consider both arguments. Or…maybe you’ll just pretend that the always unbiased heritage foundation had the last word and that those poor dumb lefties just couldn’t come up with a response.
Two more things (one topical, one general):
1) How many members of “the Senate, Congress, and Pentagon” (isn’t the senate part of congress?) have children who are ground troops stationed in Iraq?
2) What’s your take on the whole question of being fair and balanced? Would you ever consider linking to, e.g., NPP’s report alongside the Heritage Foundation? Or Chomsky next to Horowitz? Or should anything that might hurt the right-wing cause be suppressed? I know that it sounds like I’m mocking, but this is a legitimate question.
November 24, 2006 - 08:50 PM on November 24th, 2006
Heritage did the study. The numbers came from the Census, not NPP. NPP just disagrees with Heritage. Entirely predictable that when faced with an actual study that counters your assertion, you’d retreat, regroup, then come back with an attack on the source. It’s been done here for years.
Sorry, but you’ve lost this argument. Maybe you should just accept it and move on…
November 24, 2006 - 08:51 PM on November 24th, 2006
shiloh did you just make all that up? what would you know about any of that? Did you get it from Michael Moore?
November 24, 2006 - 11:00 PM on November 24th, 2006
1) How many members of “the Senate, Congress, and Pentagon”(isn’t the senate part of congress?) have children who are ground troops stationed in Iraq?
I know of two Ohio Congressmen that have served in Iraq themselves (one Democrat, one Reoublican). I find the whole “rich v. poor” arguement to be silly myself.
November 25, 2006 - 03:29 AM on November 25th, 2006
39, 40
Robert,
What we have is one set of data and two sets of interpretations. NPP published the first study; the heritage foundation freaked out and got something together that was supposed to contradict the NPP stance; then the NPP responded.
By the way, you don’t need Michael Moore for the “Champagne Unit” comment. Why, Robert, are you so afraid of anything that threatens your incredibly flimsy and ill thought out viewpoint.
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.
November 25, 2006 - 07:25 AM on November 25th, 2006
Who said Bush fought in Vietnam? He served in the National Guard. Contrary to Rather’s attempt to paint the picture differently, he served.
As for the sock comment..wrong again..Al Gore was the one that was Air Brushed on the cover of Rolling Stone..how said that they felt they need to improvie that!
November 27, 2006 - 08:14 AM on November 27th, 2006
Solarc (and others)
There are few times in history when the poor(er) were not the ones doing most the fighting (Middle Ages in Europe). Your point is that the US military in 2006 is similar to militaries throughout history? Well done.
Get off your keyboard and go help someone in your community.
November 27, 2006 - 09:16 AM on November 27th, 2006
Hey Tex,
You seem to be a minority voice on this site. You accept that we have an army of the poor, but you don’t think that there’s anything wrong with it.
If your argument reduces to “so what,” how about the fact that it seems exploitive for those in power (and I really mean the corporations rather than the govt, but the govt too) to gain from the suffering of the underclasses.
Is the European Middle Ages really a good model for the way that things ought to be?
November 27, 2006 - 09:21 AM on November 27th, 2006
43,
Who said Bush fought in Vietnam? He served in the National Guard. Contrary to Rather’s attempt to paint the picture differently, he served.
In the “Champagne unit” with one year unaccounted for. See Shiloh’s post.
As for the sock comment..wrong again..Al Gore was the one that was Air Brushed on the cover of Rolling Stone..how said that they felt they need to improvie that!
Oh, I thought that it was Bush on the deck of an aircraft carrier prancing around like a fairy with a sock in his jock shouting “mission accomplished.” It was actually Gore? How silly of me.
November 27, 2006 - 09:30 AM on November 27th, 2006
hey solarc like wow man yer way kewl too like my pals knippel and eben yer as smart as they are hey im glad were on the same side you know do you like michael moore too i thought so yeah hes my idol i just knew you liked him anyway glad yer on our side solarc yer way kewl dood
November 27, 2006 - 09:36 AM on November 27th, 2006
In the “Champagne unit”with one year unaccounted for. See Shiloh’s post There is no need to see shiloh’s post. As I said, Contrary to Rather’s attempt to paint the picture differently, he served. He was discharged honorably..The paperwork has been released..it just didn’t jive with what some wanted it to say. He served his country..period..Was it any less honorable than Senator Gore getting his son a desk job and a babysitter when Jr. served in Vietnam?
November 27, 2006 - 09:42 AM on November 27th, 2006
45- by that reasoning, we should cut off all support to lower class as it is now being used as an expoitive tool to garner political support. No more affirmative action as it seems exploitive for those in power….
November 27, 2006 - 09:54 AM on November 27th, 2006
48,
As far as Gore goes, are you referring to the urban legend about the CCR song? Wasn’t that debunked on Snopes?
Anyway, Bush was a patriot. Not like Gore, or Kerry, or McCain, right? Man, that was really lucky of Bush to have ended up—-with no help from Daddy—-in such a cool platoon. If I’d volunteered during ‘Nam, would I have been able to serve with “Democratic Governor John Connally, Democratic Senator and future Vice-Presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen, and Republican Senator John Tower, as well as seven members of the Dallas Cowboys professional football club, and a man named James R. Bath, who would become a longtime friend of Bush’s”?
He basically served in a fraternity. Are you honestly claiming that Daddy didn’t pull strings for him?
November 27, 2006 - 09:57 AM on November 27th, 2006
The point isn’t Gore bad/Bush good or the reverse. Bush obviously used his social position to get himself a cushy spot during the war. Maybe Gore did, too (though I don’t remember hearing about him “serving” alongside movie stars or pro athletes).
I agree with most of what Steiger wrote, but I don’t think that the left does itself any good defending rich politicians.
November 27, 2006 - 10:00 AM on November 27th, 2006
46- Oh, I thought that it was Bush on the deck of an aircraft carrier prancing around like a fairy with a sock in his jock shouting “mission accomplished.”It was actually Gore? How silly of me. 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..there was no sock, never alluded to either. But Gore on the otherhand..Priceless!
November 27, 2006 - 10:03 AM on November 27th, 2006
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.
November 27, 2006 - 10:05 AM on November 27th, 2006
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…
November 27, 2006 - 12:37 PM on November 27th, 2006
So…
PROOF exists in the case of Gore, but nothing of the sort for Bush. My that boy got lucky.
November 27, 2006 - 12:47 PM on November 27th, 2006
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
November 27, 2006 - 01:25 PM on November 27th, 2006
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.
November 27, 2006 - 01:30 PM on November 27th, 2006
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…
November 27, 2006 - 01:37 PM on November 27th, 2006
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.
November 29, 2006 - 02:31 PM on November 29th, 2006
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.
November 29, 2006 - 04:56 PM on November 29th, 2006
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.
November 29, 2006 - 05:04 PM on November 29th, 2006
I almost missed a milestone:
The war in Iraq has now lasted longer than the U.S.’s involvement in World War II.
November 29, 2006 - 07:13 PM on November 29th, 2006
We could drop 2 bombs and call it a war:roll:
November 29, 2006 - 10:55 PM on November 29th, 2006
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?
November 30, 2006 - 02:20 AM on November 30th, 2006
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.
November 30, 2006 - 07:27 AM on November 30th, 2006
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?
November 30, 2006 - 09:34 AM on November 30th, 2006
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.
November 30, 2006 - 10:36 AM on November 30th, 2006
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.
November 30, 2006 - 01:41 PM on November 30th, 2006
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.
November 30, 2006 - 05:34 PM on November 30th, 2006
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.
November 30, 2006 - 07:58 PM on November 30th, 2006
“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.
November 30, 2006 - 09:04 PM on November 30th, 2006
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.
December 1, 2006 - 01:52 AM on December 1st, 2006
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.
December 1, 2006 - 06:38 AM on December 1st, 2006
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.
December 1, 2006 - 07:11 AM on December 1st, 2006
73, but, bozo, your statements only apply and make sense to YOU. You are the fool who isn’t listening to anyone else.
December 1, 2006 - 10:52 AM on December 1st, 2006
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.
December 1, 2006 - 11:37 AM on December 1st, 2006
“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.
December 1, 2006 - 11:43 AM on December 1st, 2006
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.
December 1, 2006 - 03:23 PM on December 1st, 2006
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.).
December 1, 2006 - 05:11 PM on December 1st, 2006
Where is the IGWT page?
December 1, 2006 - 07:00 PM on December 1st, 2006
80- go here