• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Mandatory Service Bill and the Impending Attack On Iran

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,596
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Rangel specifically said the legislation is designed to be used “during time of war.” On the day before Rangel’s slavery bill went to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Texas Rep. Louis Buller Gohmert introduced House Resolution 1553. It has since been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

“Expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel,” Gohmert’s resolution states.

Language contained in the resolution condemns Iran “for its threats of annihilating the United States and the State of Israel” (threats Iran has never issued) and supports the use of “all means of persuading the Government of Iran to stop building and acquiring nuclear weapons” (nuclear weapons Iran does not have and does not possess the capability to produce). Gohmert’s bill supports Israel’s “right” to use “all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran.”

Ah yes the Chicken****, Chickenhawks in government want more war and some slavery to add flavor. Now of course the spoiled brats of these scum will find a way to avoid combat you know since war is to left to us lowly serfs.

The Mandatory Service Bill and the Impending Attack On Iran
 

WingsOfDesire

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
64
Reaction score
22
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Next time I recommend an unbiased article. I was mostly writing this off as drivel before I reread it from a much less opinionated piece.

I wonder if the Black Congressional Caucus will issue anything against Rangel in regards to something rather reminiscent of slavery.
 

WingsOfDesire

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
64
Reaction score
22
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Whats biased about it? Because its from Alex Jones' website? Mentions Israel? Or did it hurt your feelings?

Then dont read it.
Maybe it was the overwhelming amount of personal views inserted into the story? It's funny to me, because whenever you see someone using the word 'neocon' every other sentence, you know you're in for a rant from a sure-fire seer. God bless em', they're our modern day prophets.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The U.S. doesn't need peacetime conscription. The extremely high-tech nature of today's volunteer force would mesh quite badly with a horde of conscripts. We managed to cover 2 simultaneous wars with current manpower levels. However, I do agree with amending selective service to include women. As far as attacking Iran goes, Israel might do it if they feel threatened enough, but it is very unlikely that risk-averse Obama would commit political suicide.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Whats biased about it? Because its from Alex Jones' website? Mentions Israel? Or did it hurt your feelings?
Yes, because its a website ran by a conspiracy nut.

Yes, because its a website that focuses on conspiracy nut stories.

Yes, because its a website whose conspiracy nut theories typically never pan out because they're conspiracy nut theories.

Yes, because its a conspiracy nut website that uses idiotic conspiracy nut hyperbolic language such as "slavery bill" which is on par with suggesting a site isn't biased if they referred to the Stimulus Package as the Porkulus Package.

Yes, because its a conspiracy nut story litered with nothing but bitter conspiracy nut rants based on nothing but giant hyperbole and questionable facts such as equating the Bush administration to nazi's.

Yes, because its a conspiracy nut story who apparently doesn't realize its not 2007 anymore as he tries to give evidence from 2007 as "proof" of what's going on today.

Yes, because its a conspiracy nut story whose using 3 year old information and a random guy from the govenrment in question rather than numerous RECENT reports from actual respected sources concerning Iran's nuclear potential

Yes, because its a conspiracy nut story who declares their personal opinion on an issue as absolute fact in regards to the "translation" issue and what was meant by the Iranian leader

So yeah, I see lots of legitimate reasons why its a complete and utter biased story filled with hyperbole, personal opinion presented as facts, and conspiracy loonecy that is about as worthy of legitimate care as any random story posted on the DailyKOS, WND, or the Weekly World News.
 

TheHat

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2009
Messages
551
Reaction score
177
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, because its a website ran by a conspiracy nut.

Yes, because its a website that focuses on conspiracy nut stories.

Yes, because its a website whose conspiracy nut theories typically never pan out because they're conspiracy nut theories.

Yes, because its a conspiracy nut website that uses idiotic conspiracy nut hyperbolic language such as "slavery bill" which is on par with suggesting a site isn't biased if they referred to the Stimulus Package as the Porkulus Package.

Yes, because its a conspiracy nut story litered with nothing but bitter conspiracy nut rants based on nothing but giant hyperbole and questionable facts such as equating the Bush administration to nazi's.

Yes, because its a conspiracy nut story who apparently doesn't realize its not 2007 anymore as he tries to give evidence from 2007 as "proof" of what's going on today.

Yes, because its a conspiracy nut story whose using 3 year old information and a random guy from the govenrment in question rather than numerous RECENT reports from actual respected sources concerning Iran's nuclear potential

Yes, because its a conspiracy nut story who declares their personal opinion on an issue as absolute fact in regards to the "translation" issue and what was meant by the Iranian leader

So yeah, I see lots of legitimate reasons why its a complete and utter biased story filled with hyperbole, personal opinion presented as facts, and conspiracy loonecy that is about as worthy of legitimate care as any random story posted on the DailyKOS, WND, or the Weekly World News.
Excuse me mod.

Is this not the partisan news section? Where partisanship is the main ingredient?

Why are people complaining about partisan articles, in the partisan section?

Lets discuss the subject here, we all know this is the partisan section, its understood no?

I think it is quite telling, that Charlie Rangel, a Democrat, wants to do this. It is the Democrats who were claiming that the GOP wanted to institute the draft again, back in 2008, hell, it was Rangel himself saying this. Then he presents, a draft bill himself????

If you ask me, the man is a few bricks short of a house.
 
Last edited:

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Whats biased about it? Because its from Alex Jones' website? Mentions Israel? Or did it hurt your feelings?
Maybe because it calls it a 'slavery bill?' A less biased site explains:
Rep. Charles Rangel is again calling for a military draft to highlight the fact that relatively few families are bearing a disproportionate burden in fighting the nation's wars. {snip} Rangel said lawmakers who support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should require "all who enjoy the benefits of our democracy to contribute to the defense of the country."
Rangel Again Calls for Military Draft

TheHat said: I think it is quite telling, that Charlie Rangel, a Democrat, wants to do this. It is the Democrats who were claiming that the GOP wanted to institute the draft again, back in 2008, hell, it was Rangel himself saying this. Then he presents, a draft bill himself???? If you ask me, the man is a few bricks short of a house.
See, that's the problem with junk. We don't get the full story. We don't know we don't get the full story. We form opinions based on junk.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,172
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Excuse me mod.
You're excused?

Is this not the partisan news section? Where partisanship is the main ingredient?
Yep, it is. Where did I put a mod box or say he did anything against the rules? Not seeing your point here.

Why are people complaining about partisan articles, in the partisan section?
They're complaining about the notion of expecting people to trust an obviously biased article. More to the point, they're using a typical debate tactic of pointing out that caching your entire argument on a questionable source weakens your argument.

Lets discuss the subject here, we all know this is the partisan section, its understood no?
We are discussing the subject. Part of discussing the subject is examining the credibility of the subject, in this case by examining the credibility of the story. There's no rule nor statement anywhere on this forum that everything posted to be talked about must be considered gospel truth. Pointing out the biased and conspiratorial nature of the website, linking that to the biased and conspiratorial way in which the article is written, and linking that to the hyperbole and deceptive information that brings the entire point of the subject into question and thus invalidates its worth is all part of discussing the subject.

I think it is quite telling, that Charlie Rangel, a Democrat, wants to do this. It is the Democrats who were claiming that the GOP wanted to institute the draft again, back in 2008, hell, it was Rangel himself saying this. Then he presents, a draft bill himself????
All fine and good. If someone wanted to talk about Charlie Rangel's draft bill, why not post a thread about it.

THIS thread seems to be talking about a "slavery" bill that is being passed in a conspiratorial way to be used with an attack on Iran who it claims has nothing to do with nuclear weapons and never has threatened Israel, claiming a conspiracy between apparently the "Neocons", Charlie Rangel, and the New York times in orchestrating a way to enslave American people.

That's what the stories talking about. If the OP simply wanted to talk about Rangel's draft-like bill, perhaps he should've actually made a post and linked to a story that actually dealt with that primarily and with a shred of honesty rather than made a topic that is nothing but a massive speculation that is covered with gigantic sheen conspiracy gunk.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,547
Reaction score
30,965
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ah yes the Chicken****, Chickenhawks in government want more war and some slavery to add flavor. Now of course the spoiled brats of these scum will find a way to avoid combat you know since war is to left to us lowly serfs.

The Mandatory Service Bill and the Impending Attack On Iran
Getting past all the hype and bull****....this is just a BAD legislative idea. Forced conscription is a MASSIVE drain on the taxpayers, wont provide any real service, and is absolutely not wanted by the military.
 

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Getting past all the hype and bull****....this is just a BAD legislative idea. Forced conscription is a MASSIVE drain on the taxpayers, wont provide any real service, and is absolutely not wanted by the military.
Not to mention you don't get much more big government than the government controlling every aspect of every citizen's life for 2-4 years (depending on how long they made the conscription last). And I can't even get behind the "its character building" argument because a vital and necessary part of military training is training you how to kill. Obviously the military has to do that but that doesn't mean we should be putting every citizen through that training.
 
Top Bottom