Senior Democrat to reintroduce legislaion to reinstate the military draft

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm always amused by the indignation, such as just spoken by aussie, over the fact that they may have to abide by the law as a condition to living here. Sorry aussie, I really do like you but that's the way it is. You know this before coming here.

If you note in my response to Infidel in an earlier post. I am not disagreeing that one should not abide by the laws as a condition of living here. What I AM disagreeing with is that one should be drafted to fight and die for a country that one has no right to vote in.

I heard you the first time however, if you're a male (i know you're not) in that age range and you don't want to serve, then you have a choice.....and you know what that is....

I'm not arguing that it's fair, or unfair. It could be a condition of immigration and residency that one should consider.

Would you now be conceding that immigrants have the right to express an opinion about issues that may directly affect them?

Beech away, because that's all it will amount to. Without the right to vote these issues they are simply non-issues for you and irrevocable (as long as you want to stay in the U.S.A.) conditions placed on your residency.

If it should happen you'll have three choices: comply, leave or disappear and meld in as an illegal. Where's the "discussion"?

The discussion is that I have the right to talk about it. You seem to think that it should be a taboo subject and the immigrants should "zip their lips" about issues that affect them.

[mybackpages 0]

I'm always amused by the indignation, such as just spoken by aussie, over the fact that they may have to abide by the law as a condition to living here. Sorry aussie, I really do like you but that's the way it is. You know this before coming here.

If you note in my response to Infidel in an earlier post. I am not disagreeing that one should not abide by the laws as a condition of living here. What I AM disagreeing with is that one should be drafted to fight and die for a country that one has no right to vote in.

I heard you the first time however, if you're a male (i know you're not) in that age range and you don't want to serve, then you have a choice.....and you know what that is....

I'm not arguing that it's fair, or unfair. It could be a condition of immigration and residency that one should consider.

Would you now be conceding that immigrants have the right to express an opinion about issues that may directly affect them?

Beech away, because that's all it will amount to. Without the right to vote these issues they are simply non-issues for you and irrevocable (as long as you want to stay in the U.S.A.) conditions placed on your residency.

If it should happen you'll have three choices: comply, leave or disappear and meld in as an illegal. Where's the "discussion"?

Well as an USC they are not non-issues for me. I am appalled we would compel a LPR to fight and die for a country that is not willing to give them a voice in the decision making. Laws do change. Your argument that noncitizens should not voice opinions or even objections to laws because they should love it or leave it stinks. It's illogical. I'm not judging, just pointing out what post after post of yours say on their own.

Edited November 21, 2006 by mybackpages

[GaryC 7]

Sorry Kadee, I have to come down on the side of Erekose and Aussie on this one. A LPR should have the right to join the military if they want to but until they have the right to vote (become naturalised) then they shouldn't be compelled to join. They don't have representation yet.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Jenn! 918]

I have to come down on the side of Erekose...

[GaryC 7]

I have to come down on the side of Erekose...

Hey! I am not that unreasonable! Right is right after all. Without representation and the right to choose who makes the laws then I don't think you should be forced to fight and possably die for a cause you couldn't have a say over.

I also want to say that I am not in favor of a draft now or ever. Unless of course WW3 broke out and we were invaded or something.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sorry Kadee, I have to come down on the side of Erekose and Aussie on this one. A LPR should have the right to join the military if they want to but until they have the right to vote (become naturalised) then they shouldn't be compelled to join. They don't have representation yet.

Residents of Washington DC don't have representation either, but they could be compelled to join.

Charley Rangel voted against the war, and he is advocating the draft as a devil's advocate move. He submitted a bill last year, which was rejected, and he has already had his hand slapped by Nancy Pelosi re the issue. His point is that if you are for the war, you should be for the draft, and he is trying to draw out what he sees as the hypocisy of the war's supporters in that they are loathe to vote for the draft, and often loathed to send their own kids to fight.

[mybackpages 0]

I have to come down on the side of Erekose...

Hey! I am not that unreasonable! Right is right after all. Without representation and the right to choose who makes the laws then I don't think you should be forced to fight and possably die for a cause you couldn't have a say over.

I also want to say that I am not in favor of a draft now or ever. Unless of course WW3 broke out and we were invaded or something.

Gary, We rarely agree in these politcal threads but I know you are a good guy with the heart to do the right thing. Now i have to ask...how does it feel hanging out with us liberal treehugers on this issue? BTW we have margaritas and nachos on this side of the political spectrum

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have to come down on the side of Erekose...

Hey! I am not that unreasonable! Right is right after all. Without representation and the right to choose who makes the laws then I don't think you should be forced to fight and possably die for a cause you couldn't have a say over.

I also want to say that I am not in favor of a draft now or ever. Unless of course WW3 broke out and we were invaded or something.

I'll agree to that.

[mybackpages 0]

Sorry Kadee, I have to come down on the side of Erekose and Aussie on this one. A LPR should have the right to join the military if they want to but until they have the right to vote (become naturalised) then they shouldn't be compelled to join. They don't have representation yet.

Residents of Washington DC don't have representation either, but they could be compelled to join.

Charley Rangel voted against the war, and he is advocating the draft as a devil's advocate move. He submitted a bill last year, which was rejected, and he has already had his hand slapped by Nancy Pelosi re the issue. His point is that if you are for the war, you should be for the draft, and he is trying to draw out what he sees as the hypocisy of the war's supporters in that they are loathe to vote for the draft, and often loathed to send their own kids to fight.

Not exactly. They do have congressional representation but this representative doesn't have a vote. He can sit on committees and participate in the debate of the House. there is no representation at all in the Senate. They also have the vote for president and 3 electoral votes.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sorry Kadee, I have to come down on the side of Erekose and Aussie on this one. A LPR should have the right to join the military if they want to but until they have the right to vote (become naturalised) then they shouldn't be compelled to join. They don't have representation yet.

Residents of Washington DC don't have representation either, but they could be compelled to join.

Charley Rangel voted against the war, and he is advocating the draft as a devil's advocate move. He submitted a bill last year, which was rejected, and he has already had his hand slapped by Nancy Pelosi re the issue. His point is that if you are for the war, you should be for the draft, and he is trying to draw out what he sees as the hypocisy of the war's supporters in that they are loathe to vote for the draft, and often loathed to send their own kids to fight.

Not exactly. They do have congressional representation but this representative doesn't have a vote. He can sit on committees and participate in the debate of the House. there is no representation at all in the Senate. They also have the vote for president and 3 electoral votes.

That is not representation and it has been a sore point with DC residents forever. I was a DC resident for nearly 18 years, and moved to the suburbs to get the representation I didn't have there.

[mybackpages 0]

Sorry Kadee, I have to come down on the side of Erekose and Aussie on this one. A LPR should have the right to join the military if they want to but until they have the right to vote (become naturalised) then they shouldn't be compelled to join. They don't have representation yet.

Residents of Washington DC don't have representation either, but they could be compelled to join.

Charley Rangel voted against the war, and he is advocating the draft as a devil's advocate move. He submitted a bill last year, which was rejected, and he has already had his hand slapped by Nancy Pelosi re the issue. His point is that if you are for the war, you should be for the draft, and he is trying to draw out what he sees as the hypocisy of the war's supporters in that they are loathe to vote for the draft, and often loathed to send their own kids to fight.

Not exactly. They do have congressional representation but this representative doesn't have a vote. He can sit on committees and participate in the debate of the House. there is no representation at all in the Senate. They also have the vote for president and 3 electoral votes.

That is not representation and it has been a sore point with DC residents forever. I was a DC resident for nearly 18 years, and moved to the suburbs to get the representation I didn't have there.

I agree its not full representation and it is shameful as far as Congress goes. But you can't compare LPR with residents of DC. LPRs have no power of the ballot.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

They're compatible in that neither has representation and both labor under less than optimal legislative input conditions. That fact of the matter is, if you live in DC, you have unequal representation and are subject to the laws as they are made by those for whom you did not vote. If you chose to live in the US without a vote, you are subject to the laws as they are made by those for whom you did not vote. Six in one hand, half dozen in the other.

[GaryC 7]

I never really understood why they made DC a non state. I mean, how would you get help with a problem you would normally go to a senator or congressman for? They really should make them part of Virginia or Maryland. No USC should be without representation. It's what makes us a "representative democracy".

[mybackpages 0]

They're compatible in that neither has representation and both labor under less than optimal legislative input conditions. That fact of the matter is, if you live in DC, you have unequal representation and are subject to the laws as they are made by those for whom you did not vote. If you chose to live in the US without a vote, you are subject to the laws as they are made by those for whom you did not vote. Six in one hand, half dozen in the other.

There is a difference between no representation and diminished representation.

[BJZags 17]

I never really understood why they made DC a non state. I mean, how would you get help with a problem you would normally go to a senator or congressman for? They really should make them part of Virginia or Maryland. No USC should be without representation. It's what makes us a "representative democracy".

I hear Marion Barry's phone number is still listed.