Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Bring back the Draft —
Posted by: McQ on Monday, November 20, 2006

This comes as no real surprise:
Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded
Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.
A) There's already a requirement that 18 year-olds register with the Selective Service System.

B) Rangel is simply wrong when he claims the all-volunteer military "disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families". Link. Link.

C) The military doesn't want it, nor does the public. The all-volunteer force is acknowledged to be the best military we've ever had. There's a very simple reason. Everyone there wants to be there. If Rangel doesn't feel we have enough troops to address all the missions he sees on the horizon, then the answer isn't a draft, it's legislation authorizing the expansion of the volunteer military.

D) Last but not least, it's simply anti-liberty.

Rangel is also wrong if he thinks a draft would seriously stop lawmakers from voting for war simply because their "children" might be subject to being called up. Rangel, as well as anyone, knows how power works in Washington and, if a concerted effort were made, how little chance any 'child' of a legislator really has of ending up in combat.

This is simply a political ploy to push Rangel's belief in "service", conscripted or otherwise. He's one of those who thinks mandatory service is a 'good thing'.
He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.
"Americorp" writ large, with the appropriate spending, bureaucracy and coercion. Is this an example of the Democrat's desire to guard personal rights and freedoms? Is this really part of the agenda Democrats in Congress want to push?

More here.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Rangel is as statist as they come — what he (and Emanuel) envision would be Americorps on steroids.

But I highly doubt this will go anywhere. The under-30 vote is too critical to the Dems, and such a scheme would destroy support from the Jon Stewart audience.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://inactivist.org/
This is about recreating Vietnam. The volunteer force has been one of the stumbling blocks to their 100% recreating that moment.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
This is about recreating Vietnam. The volunteer force has been one of the stumbling blocks to their 100% recreating that moment
And the foot shooting party continues for the Democrats.

Rove thanks you.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I keep hoping to see a topic, any topic, disucssed
without the us’ vs them’ presentation. Each side picks out the themes and statistics they like and ignores the contradictions.
I hope in vain.

Maybe an all volunteer army is the best solution, but it has a negative side. It produces a military society as a separate enclave within the larger society. Unless you are part of that enclave, these years of war have not touched you in a personal way. Suporting the troops from a distance is a good thing, but, in the end, it’s not much different from the admiration bestowed on movie stars.
Separation produces division. Making the war a political issue was, in the same way, an act of separating the nation along political party lines. A lot of people voted for Democrats simply because they were pushed out of the Republican party by the ’a vote for Democrats is a vote for the jihad’ rhetoric.
The link provided (to the Defense Dept.) touts statistics about high school graduates in the militrary. But the question of the day concerns the need for a college education. As the costs of college rise, the military becomes one of the shrinking venues to attain that dream.
In that regard, I would like to see a statistic about the number of ivy league graduates enlising, just to get a more complete picture.

I don’t hold a prejudice against the present system. I do resent the provocative manner the question is raised for discussion.

 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
I hope in vain.
That’s correct. This is a libertarian blog, not a neutral place of discussion. Why you continue to hope we’d be neutral about anti-liberty proposals mystifies me.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Why you continue to hope we’d be neutral about anti-liberty proposals mystifies me.
Well, you supported the idea of the Democrats gaining political power in the national legislatures.

I hope you can see how confused that idea is.

Given the miniscule justification you offered for that goal, I hope you are hoping the Democrats don’t trade continued support for the war for increasing taxes and higher growth in redistributionist spending.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I hope you can see how confused that idea is.
Only if you completely ignore the reasoning, Tom, which, of course, you always do.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Well, you supported the idea of the Democrats gaining political power in the national legislatures.
Because of that last "s," that’s a lie, Tom.

McQ supported a divided Congress, specifically a Democrat House and a Republican Senate. He couldn’t have possibly been more clear.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Maybe an all volunteer army is the best solution, but it has a negative side. It produces a military society as a separate enclave within the larger society.
Not sure what your argument here is. The fact is that people chose to join the military. They see it as a willing service. The fact remains that most people in the military are better educated and come from a higher income bracket that the average.

So who do you want to serve? The institutional poor, the illiterate, the plain incompetent and lazy? Who would that serve? What would that accomplish? As the good Dean Wormer might have said, "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to recruit for an army".

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
="This is a libertarian blog, not a neutral place of discussion. Why you continue to hope we’d be neutral about anti-liberty proposals mystifies me. "
==
If your stance on any issue is correct, it should be able to withstand a thorough look at the question at hand. You don’t have to be neutral to be honest and thorough.
If Libertarians want to gain more power politically, they will need to ask themselves if they want to bamboozle people into agreement or convince them. Since you are convinced about the righteousness of your cause, it truly mystidies me why you feel the need to bristle at outside intrusions in your thought process.
If the Dems are bad, it does not automatically dollow that Livertarians are good. You have to present your case for examination.
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
If your stance on any issue is correct, it should be able to withstand a thorough look at the question at hand. You don’t have to be neutral to be honest and thorough.
And what is dishonest about what is written above?
If Libertarians want to gain more power politically, they will need to ask themselves if they want to bamboozle people into agreement or convince them. Since you are convinced about the righteousness of your cause, it truly mystidies me why you feel the need to bristle at outside intrusions in your thought process.


How are you being "bamboozled" by what I’ve written?

And to be clear, I’m not "bristling", I’m explaining that anyone who doesn’t understand this blog is going to have a certain prejudice is not paying attention or is demanding something which they’re not ever going to get.
If the Dems are bad, it does not automatically dollow that Livertarians are good. You have to present your case for examination.
This is a non sequitur ... I have no idea how to respond. The case is above. What part don’t you understand?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
CAPT JOE:

My concern was that the separation of the military families into a separate ’enclave’ eroded the support for the war on the one hand and the understanding of its consequences on the other.
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
A lot of people voted for Democrats simply because they were pushed out of the Republican party by the ’a vote for Democrats is a vote for the jihad’ rhetoric.

As opposed to the Democrats’ ’a vote for Republicans is a vote for baby-killing chickenhawk theocratic fascists’ rhetoric. Which, frankly, was far, far more on display than alleged ’Dems are traitors’ claims by Republican figures.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
If the Dems are bad, it does not automatically dollow that Livertarians are good
McQ, I didn’t know you and the rest of the QandO fellows were such fans of liver :)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
the separation of the military families into a separate ’enclave’ eroded the support for the war on the one hand and the understanding of its consequences on the other.
I do not believe this to be the case. I continue to see people give up seats in first class to people in uniform. I continue to see support for the troops across the board.

It seems to me that the administration has done a poor job explaining what it is trying to accomplish and the media has done a god job of defining Iraq as a ’quagmire’.

I just do not see how reverting to the draft would be construed as a good thing.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
A lot of people voted for Democrats simply because they were pushed out of the Republican party by the ’a vote for Democrats is a vote for the jihad’ rhetoric
.

Based on how the jihadi’s viewed it, that is not an incorrect statement
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
My concern was that the separation of the military families into a separate ’enclave’ eroded the support for the war on the one hand and the understanding of its consequences on the other.
Not sure I believe that is happening. Many military families are very quick to reachout to the non military and anti military (like the MSM for that matter) and correct untruths that people on the left are so quick to peddle (like the current one about only the poor and illiterate join the army).
Livertarians??
Next Laime will be asking for onions. ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
="How are you being "bamboozled" by what I’ve written?"
==
You present your issues by presenting the negaive: What a Dem says is bad.
The possible alternatives range from your view to a compromise view to a third view altogether If you want to present the case for your view, it takes more than a link to select statistics.

If you are sure you are right, you should have no fear from broadening the discussion.




 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
"Livertarians??"

Okay, so my keyboard sticks and my eyesight is bad.
 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
I can think of few dumber ideas than bringing back the draft, but you gotta admit, it is comforting to know that some things never change, and that even after all these years, the Democrats are still the pro-slavery party.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Suporting the troops from a distance is a good thing, but, in the end, it’s not much different from the admiration bestowed on movie stars.
Well, it is a lot easier to become one of the troops than one of the movie stars.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
You present your issues by presenting the negaive: What a Dem says is bad.
It is bad ... and it wouldn’t matter if a Republican said it. It isn’t about the party of the person saying it. It is about the concept being presented being anti-liberty.

What? Should I pretend it is good? I mean for the life of me why would you expect a libertarian to think the draft is a ’good’ thing (or even be neutral about it)?
If you are sure you are right, you should have no fear from broadening the discussion.
Murder is bad. Agreed?

How should we broaden that discussion?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Rangel hooked up with a returned Peace Corps Volunteer and cooked up a bunch of legislation before all this. He wants his own legacy like Clinton and Americorps, etc. His legislaltion is considered a joke and so is this.

The democrats went ahead and stopped this, not that they never would have allowed it if it didn’t help with Bush.
 
Written By: swe
URL: http://
All I can say, is anyone advocating the draft hasn’t spent much time reading American history.
Hell, at one point shortly after we’d gained our independence we had no standing army because they didn’t see the need for it (as it turned out, they were wrong....big surprise).

Resistance to a draft has a long history in the United States, it didn’t just start during Vietnam.

As to ’enclave’s being formed, well, that’s what happens when you have people serving, and their families, based together, just like you have enclaves of liberals in Boston, New York and Hollywood, and enclaves of left wing college professors at major universities.

 
Written By: Looker
URL: http://
"Only if you completely ignore the reasoning, Tom, which, of course, you always do."
I don’t ignore it, I value it less highly and think it less likely than you do.

I also had and have a much more realistic attitude about what to expect from the Democrats than you do. You seemed willing to leave it at "government will grow slower"—that’s d—n near all we heard from you.

In fact of course, to get some of what they want, the Republicans will give the Democrats some of what they want. Cr@p like this is what they want.

I don’t know why you ever thought that might be a good deal.

Had those fries yet?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I don’t ignore it, I value it less highly and think it less likely than you do.
I think it less likely now as well mostly because what I said I wanted didn’t come to pass.

And that is the part you continue to ignore.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Resistance to a draft has a long history in the United States, it didn’t just start during Vietnam.
It sure didn’t ... for those interested check out the history of the draft riots in New York City during the Civil War.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I wrote:
Well, you supported the idea of the Democrats gaining political power in the national legislatures.
And misrepresenting or misunderstanding me, OneryWP wrote:
Because of that last "s," that’s a lie, Tom.
Did I write "simultaneously gaining political power"?

No.

And in that specific and in the larger sense, he said he wanted divided government.

He got it.

The "McQ ideal outcome"—having Republicans in charge of the Senate—with RINOs plus Dems in the majority; is little different pratically from having a "compassionate conservative", "big government" Republican in the White House.

Each will only diffidently exercise their veto—or not at all.

I can only hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
And in that specific and in the larger sense, he said he wanted divided government.
Oh quit it, Tom. You said "legislatures".

That’s plural. It is also an outright misrepresentation.

As Ornery pointed out, that was never what I called for, ever.

I wanted a Democratic House. Period. And yes, that would mean divided government. But specifically divided. IOW, not every form of "divided government" was acceptable to me.

To pretend that what happened is equal to what I wanted is disingenuous at best and that’s why both Ornery and I have called you on it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I think it less likely now as well mostly because what I said I wanted didn’t come to pass.
McQ what you wanted to come to pass was, if you mean a divided Congress a silly act of hubris and wishful thinking, "Oh the HOUSE will be Democrtic, but the Senate will be Republican." Sure that was going to happen, the Repubblicnas are reviled across the length and breadth of America, but they’ll hang onto the Senate? Or was it some "crafty" plan, like the "Fiendishly Simple Plan" that Point Five produced, only that one is tongue-in-cheek...which shows how DEFEAT in ’06 yields victory in ’08? "Oh under MY plan the Senate remains Democratic." "Oh REALLY and you have run this ’plan’ past the voters?" "Crafty" plans usually come a cropper. You remember the Acronym, KISS, right?

Or do you mean that you thought that the Democrats would NOT behave as they promised?

In either case your plan of voting for Nancy Pelosi because Danny Hastert wasn’t Micahel Badnarik seemed and seems a bit silly.

As to a draft, I can’t figure out why Rangel is proposing it... it was all about stirring up fear in ’04, what’s it about now? More fear, just figuring that the "Draft" will turn out the Yug’unz again the War and further doom Chimpy McShrub?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"I can only hope to be pleasantly surprised."

Of course I don’t think Rangel will get his draft, at least not a Vietnam style military conscription.

But much of the Democratic agenda will become law, and to get something out of this mess, the Republicans will cut deals.
And that is the part you continue to ignore.
And you continue to ignore the fact that a few percentage points less of growth in government spending is immaterial compared to the societal and fiscal disaster which the unconstitutional New Deal/limitless commerce clause apparatus represent.

If you think the "cicular firing squad" the Dems are using on each other now is interesting, if the Reps had maintained control of both houses, the Dems would be coming apart right now.

That would be a far more comforting thing than divided government could ever be.

And you think I am ignoring you?!

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
"It produces a military society as a separate enclave within the larger society. Unless you are part of that enclave, these years of war have not touched you in a personal way..."
And why does this matter? There are thousands of enclaves within broader society. Why do I need to be touched personally? Is it your unstated assumption that being touched personally would cause more people to question this war and others? Are you saying it’s not possible to be clear-headed and rational about the military’s mission if one is not involved personally?

 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
99.9% (and probably more) of what Congress does is posturing. So is this bill.

Rangel wants to argue that Republican party leaders are perfectly willing to fight a war, so long as their own children are not at risk.

As T.O. has discovered in the NFL, the more outrageous you are, the more that you get on TV. Rangel wants to be on TV and say mean things about the way that Republicans have fought the war.

Since I’ve already heard him on NPR for the first time in years, he’s already getting his wish.

frankly, i can’t stand all this posturing. but since negative ads work, politicians love to set up votes that get then be used in those ads.

 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
And you continue to ignore the fact that a few percentage points less of growth in government spending is immaterial compared to the societal and fiscal disaster which the unconstitutional New Deal/limitless commerce clause apparatus represent.
Nonsense.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ what you wanted to come to pass was, if you mean a divided Congress a silly act of hubris and wishful thinking, "Oh the HOUSE will be Democrtic, but the Senate will be Republican.
Right Joe ... and as it turns out, your wanting the Republicans to retain both houses was also a ’silly act of hubris and wishful thinking’ one supposes?

Good grief.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Oh quit it, Tom. You said "legislatures".
And if I’d meant simultaneously I’d have said it.
"That’s plural. It is also an outright misrepresentation."
Obviously I disagree. I can see where you are coming from, but I don’t agree with you.

BTW, I believe where you are trying to come from is the far corner of a dock you’ve managed to paint yourself out on.
I wanted a Democratic House. Period. And yes, that would mean divided government. But specifically divided. IOW, not every form of "divided government" was acceptable to me.
And with respect to acting as a restraint on government spending—let alone every other thing about the last 6 years which irritated you (of which I hope spending was not the greatest)—you are claiming there is a significant difference between the Dems having the House only instead of both houses.

I think that’s a fair representation of what you are saying.

There is no such difference for sensible people to take note of, because the Senate you hoped would be* in place would have been the same one which also passed every piece of legislation you wanted the Reps to be punished for!

*Unimproved at that by a lesser number of Dem pickups.

And the same President overall!

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I wrote:
And you continue to ignore the fact that a few percentage points less of growth in government spending is immaterial compared to the societal and fiscal disaster which the unconstitutional New Deal/limitless commerce clause apparatus represent.
And McQ replied:
Nonsense.
Thereby continuing to ignore me while complaining I’m ignoring him.

Is McQ endorsing the New Deal and the regulatory nanny state?

Let’s see him reply at length and explain himself.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
McQ wrote:
Right Joe ... and as it turns out, your wanting the Republicans to retain both houses was also a ’silly act of hubris and wishful thinking’ one supposes?

Good grief.
Only in the way hoping your cancer stays in remission is "a ’silly act of hubris and wishful thinking’".

Heh.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Thereby continuing to ignore me while complaining I’m ignoring him.
Thereby denying the non sequitur you continue to regard as a valid complaint.

Had you been paying attention and then managed to characterize what I wanted correctly, you might have a basis for complaint. Instead you choose to push nonsense. I’ve simply identified it for what it is.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Right Joe ... and as it turns out, your wanting the Republicans to retain both houses was also a ’silly act of hubris and wishful thinking’ one supposes?
I didn’t claim it as LIKELY, just good policy, whereas you condemend the policy. And the policy YOU ADVOCATED, voting D because the R’s aren’t L enough has come a cropper.

I might add, of the two, mine was the one more likely to see benfits than yours, practically.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I’ve simply identified it for what it is.
And avoid a substantive attack on the merits of the policy that you claimed would have had good results.

The Ds holding the House and the Rs holding the Senate could have had no "best" outcome with respect to either the Ds or Rs holding both because for all practical purposes, the Ds held the Senate already, either they got what they wanted or they pushed the clutch in. Have you seen Chaffee or Snowe’s voting record?

The R’s holding both would have in fact have had the best result, because the Ds would have substantively reformed or dissolved. Do you think that is likely or not?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
And avoid a substantive attack on the merits of the policy that you claimed would have had good results.
Most people can understand the difference between a handgrenade and a nuclear bomb even though both are explosive devices. Apparently you can’t.

And by the way, divided government starts in January, so perhaps before you start talking about "results" you might want to wait until there actually are some.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I didn’t claim it as LIKELY, just good policy, whereas you condemend the policy.
Policy? It has zip to do with policy. It has to so with actions and results.

Actions: the largest increase in spending in the past 40 years under a Republican Congress and a complicit Republican president.

Result: A desire for something different, such as a politically antagonistic House which would slow down the ability of the Republicans to try to go for the biggest spending Congress in the last 100 years and, hopefully, cause them to reconsider their principles and again adhering to them.

Somehow you and Tom felt that one only had to shake their finger at them and they’d abandon their actions of the last 6 years and rediscover fiscal sanity and smaller government.

As we’ve pointed out, Republicans are never closer to their principles nor do they try to better act upon them than when they’re in the minority.

So in January, we’ll see how that works out, won’t we?


 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
A) There’s already a requirement that 18 year-olds register with the Selective Service System.
True.
B) Rangel is simply wrong when he claims the all-volunteer military "disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families". Link. Link.
Also true.
C) The military doesn’t want it, nor does the public. The all-volunteer force is acknowledged to be the best military we’ve ever had. There’s a very simple reason. Everyone there wants to be there. If Rangel doesn’t feel we have enough troops to address all the missions he sees on the horizon, then the answer isn’t a draft, it’s legislation authorizing the expansion of the volunteer military.
True again.
D) Last but not least, it’s simply anti-liberty.
And that is not a plausible complaint you can make; because you argued the Dems deserved more power in Washington.

Well, they have it, and there is no substantive difference you have shown between:

A
A Dem House, Dem/RINO majority Senate, and Compassionate Conservative/Big Governemnt President.
and

B
A Dem House, Dem outright majority Senate, and Compassionate Conservative/Big Governemnt President.
You wanted it broken/divided. Own up to owning your (small, maybe you swayed a few hundred votes nationwide) chunk of it.
"And by the way, divided government starts in January, so perhaps before you start talking about "results" you might want to wait until there actually are some."
I sincerely hope you are right, that all you hope materializes. Even if it does, I think it’s small potatoes compared to what might have been.

What I think will happen is that in order to get some of what they want, the Rs will make compromises, and we’ll have less of what you think you’ll get, which is already not much. Not a worth a hill of beans.

I also predict you’ll proudly plant your flag on that hill of beans and say it’s all you ever wanted.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
And that is not a plausible complaint you can make; because you argued the Dems deserved more power in Washington.
Now you’re just being ridiculous.

And btw, this starts bordering on trolling.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Somehow you and Tom felt that one only had to shake their finger at them and they’d abandon their actions of the last 6 years and rediscover fiscal sanity and smaller government.
McQ, now that’s misrepresentation. I never said that or anything like it.

I said that if they didn’t win the House, the Dems would reform themselves substantially or that they would dissolve themselves, or be a hairsbreadth away from doing one of the two. You yourself, I think it was you, quoted Carville as saying that was where they were heading if they didn’t win big. I don’t think he was wrong.

I think that if for two years, the Rs hit a 100 year record for government expansion, that that is ultimately immaterial.

With respect to the path this nation is on, a good analogy is that we are on an train heading for a bridge that’s out and over a 1000 foot canyon.

Agree/Disagree?

It doesn’t matter if we go off that bridge at 50 mph (you’re ideal divided government), 60 mph (as I think divided government will in fact work out, 70 mph (Republicans as they’d been going lately), or 90 miles an hour (your mythical uber-Super-Duper Big government Republicans). The hard landing is what’s the problem.

I assume you disagree, why? What’s better between 50 or 90mph? Or in your mind is the "1000ft canyon" more of a "10ft gully"?

Getting someone in the cab besides the Rs and the Ds it’s what needed, tying both their hands to the throttle is immaterial. Even if you had exactly what you wanted, it would be immaterial. And now you largely have what you wanted, you’re claiming what we have is something entirely different.
"And btw, this starts bordering on trolling."
Uhuh. Please show some real, practical differences between these two circumstances:

A

A Dem House, Dem/RINO majority Senate, and Compassionate Conservative/Big Government President.
and

B

A Dem House, Dem outright majority Senate, and Compassionate Conservative/Big Government President.
Go ahead, please show us how they are meaningfully different.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
McQ, now that’s misrepresentation. I never said that or anything like it.
No Tom, that’s an opinion and you need to understand the difference.
With respect to the path this nation is on, a good analogy is that we are on an train heading for a bridge that’s out and over a 1000 foot canyon.

Agree/Disagree?
Agree ... are you just waking up to that?
I assume you disagree, why? What’s better between 50 or 90mph? Or in your mind is the "1000ft canyon" more of a "10ft gully"?
None of the above. To play along with the analogy game here, the point is to stop the train. It is you who seem to think that the Republicans will do that when in fact they’ve been in the engine compartment for 6 years stoking the boiler and trying to get more speed out of the thing. What you believe is a myth or at least not a product of recent history as Jon’s most recent post illustrates (and interestingly it is about a train).

Take a good hard look at it, Tom and tell me again why it makes more sense to want an all Republican government to continue?

Even more interesting, when anyone says let’s try to put the brake on all of this by the only means presently available, you argue that method is guaranteed to make it go faster because historically the other crew supposedly loves to increase the speed of the train. The irony is we’re already at 120 miles an hour, still building speed and your solution is to stay with the present crew - apparently based in nothing more than some other-worldly faith that they’ll somehow come to their senses and apply the brake themselves?

Ridiculous.

If it is well known that when mixed, the two crews have a tendency not to cooperate and to be inefficient, it would be,to most thinking people, at least a short-term strategy for slowing the train (and that is precisely how I’ve presented it time and time again). It might lead one to assume that the inefficiency created by natural rivals will lead to an inherent loss of speed (passing legislation, and thereby spending money and expanding government) and the possibility, however small, that given the time that borrows we may even figure out how to stop the stupid thing. Of course with the present full-throttle crew, that’s not possible at all as they demonstrate day in and day out.

Which scenario would you choose?
Go ahead, please show us how they are meaningfully different.
We’ll see in January, won’t we Tom?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Y’all fight nice, wouldja?

I’m just sayin’.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
"Well, it is a lot easier to become one of the troops than one of the movie stars."

I am not so sure. There are minimum intelligence requirements for the military, not to mention drug tests and criminal record checks.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I am not so sure. There are minimum intelligence requirements for the military, not to mention drug tests and criminal record checks.
You are right there. As I said before, "fat drunk and stupid is not a basis for recruitment". If it was then ....
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
MCQ: "How should we broaden that discussion?"
=====

For one thing, it would be interesting to know what the demographics on recruits really are. Why do they join?

I don’t discount patriotism and the wish to serve the ountry, but other factors seem to be at play.
I was startled to read that about 40% of new recruits come rural areas, mainly in the South, where blue collar jobs are disappearing.
I didn’t find specific numbers, but anecdotally, many recruits join to finance a college education.

The economic factor in the military model does provide food for thought.
It seems perverse (and this is admitedly an emotional reaction) that young people should end up putting their lives on the line just to make it in our society. This symbionic relationship between economic disadvantage and the need to meet recruitment goals is troubling to me.

I think Rep. Rangel’s reasoning is outdated. The same arguments were used to argue against the draft; the well-connected and rich found ways to avoid it, while the poor and minorities served their full terms. But I don’t think it’s necessary to scoff at Rangel quite so stridently. After all, he does represent Harlem and its poor and minorities. He is duty bound to speak to his constituents’ interests, just like reps from the Midwest address the problems of farmers. He may be wrong, but he is not, therefore, reprehensible.


 
Written By: Laime
URL: http://
"fat drunk and stupid is not a basis for recruitment". If it was then ....
...We’d have Sgt. Michael Moore and Lt. Babs Streisand???
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
" mainly in the South, where blue collar jobs are disappearing"

I think you will find, once you find the demographic data, that large numbers of recruits have always come from rural areas and the south.


"that young people should end up putting their lives on the line just to make it in our society."

There are other ways to make it, even for the disadvantaged in our society. Probably more so in our society than in any society in history. Joining an army has been a way for economic advancement since at least the times of the Romans or Greeks, so it is not just our society. Sorry to add to your troubles.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
For one thing, it would be interesting to know what the demographics on recruits really are. Why do they join?
He gave you links to the studies.

But the reason as to the actual why are different for everyone. For me, it was the adventure but then I was 18 and foolish. The experience added to my life and was worthwhile. It changed my perspective on life and gave me a grounding that I really needed. I think for many this is the case.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider