• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Will Military Draft be Resurrected!

What do you think the President's position will be on the Draft Bill?

  • Will Bush decide in favor of the Bill?

    Votes: 7 26.9%
  • Will Bush decide against the Bill and threaten to Veto?

    Votes: 11 42.3%
  • Will Bush not decide, and leave for the next Adminstration?

    Votes: 1 3.8%
  • Do not know how Bush will decide, but think it IS necessary?

    Votes: 2 7.7%
  • Do not know how Bush will decide, but think it is NOT necessary?

    Votes: 5 19.2%

  • Total voters
    26
GarzaUK said:
If you decide a military invasion of Iran (which I don't think will happen, its just the US trying to talk tough), a draft will be necessary.


I hope you've got a couple of extra beds up in England, just in case a draft happens!
 
That won't help you AE...cause we have extradition treaties with England. That means that the government can come in and get you. Go to Mexico. Seriously, 1000 bucks is enough to live on for three months there with a hotel (nice one) and everything.
 
ShamMol said:
And it won't commence now Fant, get real. There is so much opposistion to this war alone that you really think that the "vast majority of the American public will rise to the occasion?" You need to get out of this bubble you have created for yourself and realize that this public that you have created in your mind doesn't exist. It isn't rising to the occasion now when military recruiting is severely down, and it probably will not for a while longer.
That acute case of tunnel-vision, from which it seems apparent that you suffer, simply will not let you see anything peripheral, will it?

Have you not read my multiple comments on the subject which stress that there is no need for conscription at this time because the volunteers more than amply fill the needs of the military?

Have you not read my mockery of that goof ball Congressman, Charley Rangel, the Harlem Hot Shot who needs a shot of publicity every now and then so that folks outside of his enclave district will remember that he exists?

Instead of being squelched, if the Cold War had heated up, do you think there would have been a draft?

If, as an example, the actions of the North Koreans, or the Chinese, should precipitate a shooting war, do you think the numbers of our 'peacetime' military would be adequate? Or would some augmentation be necessary?

There will always be opposition to conscription. Just as there has always been opposition to anything that might upset the path to glory laid out by the liberal intelligentsia.

In other times, in other countries, these are the folks who have lain down before the steamrollers of tyranny.

It has been said that at the time of the American Revolution, one third of the people supported the Crown, one third didn't care either way, and the remaining third craved liberty and were willing to fight for it,

It is fortunate for the liberals of today that the signers of the Declaration of Independence fell into that last group. Citizen soldiers did the job.

It was fortunate that a majority of the population supported preservation of the Union in Lincoln's time. Volunteers were augmented by conscripts.

It was fortunate that in World Was I and II, that the minuscule peacetime military could be quickly expanded by volunteers and augmented by conscripts to do what needed to be done.

We all hope, and some of us pray, that conscription will never be necessary again. However if it is, it will happen despite the moaning, groaning, and whining of the modern day version of the American Tories of revolutionary times, and those of similar stripe throughout the history of the US.
 
I think the Congressman is nuts too, so we agree on something Fant. I think had the cold war heated up a draft would not have ensued because of public sentiment created from the last draft that still is passed down through families that were affected by it today. There will always be opposition to a draft, but I doubt you will see it as high as it is right now Fant.

You speak of the citizen soldier-you have no idea. Two of my friends are being trained right now, as we f-ing speak, to go over and fight in Iraq in the Marines. That is the truth. They are being trained as a replacement for troops that were lost due to injury, death, or failure to re-sign. You say it is fortunate that we had the draft to take care of Hitler and his agression against other nations. What can be said now if we were to ask for a draft. We need a draft for their agression against...their..themselves...yes...themselves. That is noble and all, but the American people won't buy it.

"We all hope and some of us pray" Get real man. Speak, don't philosophize to me. You don't want a draft. Period. However, you feel it might sometime be necessary. You know what also might be necessary? Huh? Realizing that even though we are a superpower we can not go into situations alone just because we are all powerful.

I have a book for you to read. You may be thrown off by the title, but honestly, it is a great read for policy wonks. "The Superpower Myth" by Nancy Soderberg. In it, she doesn't say, as I am sure you think it is about, that the US is not a superpower. No, she speaks of the responsible use of that superpower status and how the Clinton white house finally got that in its third year. I heard her speak and she thinks that the bush white house is finally getting it-realizing that it can't go alone. Well, I suggest you read it, it is quite interesting if not a bit pricy.
 
Originally posted by cnredd (and re-posted with a little help from yours truly):
A two year stint of Universal Government Service training for all young ...[arian]... folks without exception, deferments, or any other means of skipping out would have many advantages.

They would ...[goose]... step in during times of natural disasters, augment and assist the Border Patrol, staff clinics, tutor ...[Bush-ler youth]... students, and, in general, contribute to the betterment of the country ...[fatherland]... in many other ways.

After the two years of service, they would be free ...[or given the illusion thereof]... to resume their lives ...[of economic servitude]... Many would be far better equipped ...[to receive programming later]...to do so...[would ensure the survival of the neo-con nation].
I went to military school........got bit by a red ant!
 
Billo_Really said:
I went to military school........got bit by a red ant!

You posted something FANTASEA wrote and falsely contributed it to me....dummy.
(Original Post #19)

Wouldn't be the first time.....
 
ShamMol said:
I think the Congressman is nuts too, so we agree on something Fant. I think had the cold war heated up a draft would not have ensued because of public sentiment created from the last draft that still is passed down through families that were affected by it today. There will always be opposition to a draft, but I doubt you will see it as high as it is right now Fant.
In the past, very draft was opposed. Today, a draft would be opposed. In the future, a draft will be opposed. However, if and when the military decides that its manpower demands exceed the foreseeable supply in a situation in which national defense is at stake, there will be a draft. In a time of emergency, public sentiment will not be the determinant.
You speak of the citizen soldier-you have no idea. Two of my friends are being trained right now, as we f-ing speak, to go over and fight in Iraq in the Marines. That is the truth. They are being trained as a replacement for troops that were lost due to injury, death, or failure to re-sign.
I don't understand the point of your anecdote. In all of the services, recruits are being trained to perform the duties which will be assigned to them. Isn't that the way it has always worked?
You say it is fortunate that we had the draft to take care of Hitler and his agression against other nations.
Do you agree or disagree with that?
What can be said now if we were to ask for a draft.
Why introduce a hypothetical situation?
We need a draft for their agression against...their..themselves...yes...themselves. That is noble and all, but the American people won't buy it.
You've lost me with these last few sentences
."We all hope and some of us pray" Get real man. Speak, don't philosophize to me. You don't want a draft. Period. However, you feel it might sometime be necessary. You know what also might be necessary? Huh? Realizing that even though we are a superpower we can not go into situations alone just because we are all powerful.
It should be realized, too, that the US should not be swayed by the demands of countries which were violating the UN mandates by illegally doing business with the former Iraqi regime, shouldn't it?
I have a book for you to read. You may be thrown off by the title, but honestly, it is a great read for policy wonks. "The Superpower Myth" by Nancy Soderberg. In it, she doesn't say, as I am sure you think it is about, that the US is not a superpower. No, she speaks of the responsible use of that superpower status and how the Clinton white house finally got that in its third year. I heard her speak and she thinks that the bush white house is finally getting it-realizing that it can't go alone. Well, I suggest you read it, it is quite interesting if not a bit pricy.
The only thing that Clinton was doing for two terms was soft-pedaling everything, trying to convince the Nobel Peace Prize committee that his dove-like performance qualified him to be laureate.

It was quite revealing that he never made the cut although Arafat did. That must have really frosted his agates.

The 1993 World Trade bombing, the bombing of the African Embassies, and the USS Cole bombing all were unanswered atrocities. On the other hand, internally, letting Janet Reno take all the heat for the Waco and Ruby Ridge fiascoes clarifies things somewhat.
 
Fantasea said:
In the past, very draft was opposed. Today, a draft would be opposed. In the future, a draft will be opposed. However, if and when the military decides that its manpower demands exceed the foreseeable supply in a situation in which national defense is at stake, there will be a draft. In a time of emergency, public sentiment will not be the determinant.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Every politician worries about public sentiment whether they say they do or they don't. Why? Because they want to be reelected. The only people who don't have to worry are presidents in their second term...case in bloody point, and people not running again either due to not wanting to or term limits. The draft, as we both agree, will always be opposed and thus, will not be agreed to politically in the future. Why you say? Actually, thanks to Nixon and the increased scrutiny that is now placed on Washington by the public/media, that's why. People used to say that politicians used to know best, but not anymore-that isn't what they say.
I don't understand the point of your anecdote. In all of the services, recruits are being trained to perform the duties which will be assigned to them. Isn't that the way it has always worked?Do you agree or disagree with that?Why introduce a hypothetical situation?You've lost me with these last few sentences
That was in response to what I said in three sentences. Let's lay out the scenario here. In WW2, we responded to direct agression, here we didn't. There we "needed" a draft, here we didn't. The point is that what agression would warrant a draft and consequently, would our aggression ever warrant a draft in another country?
It should be realized, too, that the US should not be swayed by the demands of countries which were violating the UN mandates by illegally doing business with the former Iraqi regime, shouldn't it?The only thing that Clinton was doing for two terms was soft-pedaling everything, trying to convince the Nobel Peace Prize committee that his dove-like performance qualified him to be laureate.
Honestly, read the book I recommended to you in another post and I think you may change your rhetoric. I used to think like you about Clinton on foreign policy (still not won over on domestic policy), but Soderberg's book convinced me. It gives a great account and I really suggest you read it.
It was quite revealing that he never made the cut although Arafat did. That must have really frosted his agates.

The 1993 World Trade bombing, the bombing of the African Embassies, and the USS Cole bombing all were unanswered atrocities. On the other hand, internally, letting Janet Reno take all the heat for the Waco and Ruby Ridge fiascoes clarifies things somewhat.
All I have to say to that is this. L...O...L. Seriously, that is the biggest spin I have ever heard and I have read posts upon posts of Squawker just to try and understand him. Wow...seriously, let's just forget you said that. Read the book, at the very least, you will get a great view of Powell from it that you wouldn't have before.
 
ShamMol said:
Sorry, but you are wrong. Every politician worries about public sentiment whether they say they do or they don't. Why? Because they want to be reelected. The only people who don't have to worry are presidents in their second term...case in bloody point, and people not running again either due to not wanting to or term limits. The draft, as we both agree, will always be opposed and thus, will not be agreed to politically in the future. Why you say? Actually, thanks to Nixon and the increased scrutiny that is now placed on Washington by the public/media, that's why. People used to say that politicians used to know best, but not anymore-that isn't what they say.
That was in response to what I said in three sentences. Let's lay out the scenario here. In WW2, we responded to direct agression, here we didn't. There we "needed" a draft, here we didn't. The point is that what agression would warrant a draft and consequently, would our aggression ever warrant a draft in another country?
If and when a draft is necessary, there will be a draft, just as there were drafts in the past, when they were necessary.
Honestly, read the book I recommended to you in another post and I think you may change your rhetoric. I used to think like you about Clinton on foreign policy (still not won over on domestic policy), but Soderberg's book convinced me. It gives a great account and I really suggest you read it.
I do not mean to be snotty, but what would you expect to find in a book written by a career Democrat who served in the Clinton Administration?
All I have to say to that is this. L...O...L. Seriously, that is the biggest spin I have ever heard and I have read posts upon posts of Squawker just to try and understand him. Wow...seriously, let's just forget you said that. Read the book, at the very least, you will get a great view of Powell from it that you wouldn't have before.
I'm familiar with Mrs. Soderberg. Try this as an example of her thinking:

Excerpt from: http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20050302-094959-9867r.htm

As a microcosm of the Democrats' dilemma, the interview proved enlightening. One such moment came when Mrs. Soderberg said, "[A]s a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen." To which Mr. Stewart replied, "Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had the courage of their conviction, having not seen -- not only the invasion but the election which followed [in Iraq]? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy -- something's going on over there. I'm smelling something."
Mr. Stewart should be applauded for his intellectual honesty, as well as his obvious pride in America's accomplishments. Mrs. Soderberg, however, couldn't be deterred from her rank partisanship. Here's one of her more odious comments: "Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us ... There's always hope that this might not work."


Her answers to questions in the following interview shed quite a bit of light on the Clinton attitude toward suffering humanity.

After reading it I came away with the strong belief that the only balls that Clinton had were resting on Monica's chin.

Excerpt from: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week702/interview3.html

Q: Take me inside. You're there, and all of this information is beginning to come in on Rwanda. What is the information you have at the time, and what's the mindset?
A: The information that you have initially is that there are some reports of potential ethnic violence in a place in the middle of Africa; most people in the White House apparatus aren't really sure where it is: "Rwanda? Where's that? Burundi?" We've heard of Hutus and Tutsis somewhere in the back of our brains; it's not in the forefront. You're worried about war with North Korea. You're worried about trying to get some action going in Bosnia. This issue is not on your front burner.

I remember asking the CIA briefers who had come in the morning, "What's the worst-case scenario here?" And they said, "Well, probably another cycle of violence, where 20 to 40,000 people might get killed." You have to remember 100,000 people in Burundi had been killed that fall, and no one really even paid any attention to that. There are reports floating around [of] impending genocide, but, frankly, we didn't get those reports at the time. We didn't know that was what was happening. It was really inconceivable that a million people would be hacked to death in the weeks ahead, so we didn't really say at the time, "If we deploy troops, can we prevent a genocide?" It's much more chaotic as it evolves through the process.


What's the big deal? It was only a million or so dead. That's not even a year's production in the US aboratoriums.
 
Well, that would seem to accurately reflect a lot of the attitudes that were coming out of the state department. They didn't care about the small places, they were focused on grand sweeping gestures and not until Clinton stepped in to say "Hey I wanna change this" did they even look at small places. That was how it was and Soderberg couldn't change that. It is horrible that things like that happened, and frankly, continue to happen even in the Bush administration through other less-known countries-that is the way it works. I like her, actually applying to work for her next summer (have to be background checked extensively so I have to apply by October) and her analysis on PBS usually is spot-on and with, well, rancoring.

As to that interview, typical blunt Soderberg, but again spot-on. That is politics and she is a career politician, just as is Karl Rove. Would you balk at it if I posted pages upon pages of similar Rove quotes?

What do you expect to find in the book...well, nothing if you go in with a negative attitude that you won't find anything. If anything, you will find more dirt on the Clinton administration that you didn't have before. You will see how things really worked and the real focuses and how they tried to levy power on the world stage.

I think I will safely say, we will never see a draft, ever. No politician would allow it for their careers and no parent would allow it for their children.

I just realized I answered it backwards...well, you are very smart, you'll figure it out.
 
Last edited:
ShamMol said:
Well, that would seem to accurately reflect a lot of the attitudes that were coming out of the state department. They didn't care about the small places, they were focused on grand sweeping gestures and not until Clinton stepped in to say "Hey I wanna change this" did they even look at small places. That was how it was and Soderberg couldn't change that. It is horrible that things like that happened, and frankly, continue to happen even in the Bush administration through other less-known countries-that is the way it works. I like her, actually applying to work for her next summer (have to be background checked extensively so I have to apply by October) and her analysis on PBS usually is spot-on and with, well, rancoring.

As to that interview, typical blunt Soderberg, but again spot-on. That is politics and she is a career politician, just as is Karl Rove. Would you balk at it if I posted pages upon pages of similar Rove quotes?

What do you expect to find in the book...well, nothing if you go in with a negative attitude that you won't find anything. If anything, you will find more dirt on the Clinton administration that you didn't have before. You will see how things really worked and the real focuses and how they tried to levy power on the world stage.

I think I will safely say, we will never see a draft, ever. No politician would allow it for their careers and no parent would allow it for their children.

I just realized I answered it backwards...well, you are very smart, you'll figure it out.
Good luck with your job application.
 
Originally posted by fantasea (and re-re-posted with a little help from the omni-present, cnredd, after noticing my mistaken identity of the author):

A two year stint of Universal Government Service training for all young ...[arian]... folks without exception, deferments, or any other means of skipping out would have many advantages.

They would ...[goose]... step in during times of natural disasters, augment and assist the Border Patrol, staff clinics, tutor ...[Bush-ler youth]... students, and, in general, contribute to the betterment of the country ...[fatherland]... in many other ways.

After the two years of service, they would be free ...[or given the illusion thereof]... to resume their lives ...[of economic servitude]... Many would be far better equipped ...[to receive programming later]...to do so...[would ensure the survival of the neo-con nation].

What can I say. It was late. I was tired. And for once, ...redd was right.
 
two year training wouldn't be a bad idea. Military training really helps build your character and personality (the physical payoff is good too).
 
cnredd said:
Here's the headline of the article...

CONGRESS READY TO RESURRECT DRAFT
U.S. Needs ‘More Boots on Ground,’ Says Democrat


One Democrat says something, and yet the WHOLE CONGRESS is ready?
Throughout the whole article, these are the only people whom had their opinions involved...Rangel's spokesman...2 security advisors(from a newspaper article)...and a leader of an anti-war group. Not ONE other member of Congress.

Can anyone say "scare tactic"?

BTW -Last year the House overwhelmingly rejected Rangel's proposal by a vote of 404-2.
http://rncwatch.typepad.com/counterrecruiter/2005/05/rep_charles_ran.html

If the shrub insists on starting pre-emptive wars and "spread democracy throughout the middle east" he'll need a lot more soldiers than we have now and since recruitments are way down he wouldn't have a choice.
 
Napoleon's Nightingale said:
If the shrub insists on starting pre-emptive wars and "spread democracy throughout the middle east" he'll need a lot more soldiers than we have now and since recruitments are way down he wouldn't have a choice.
If? If? If is an iffy word, isn't it. In the same vein, if your aunt had a full scrotum, she'd be your uncle.
 
Fantasea said:
That acute case of tunnel-vision, from which it seems apparent that you suffer, simply will not let you see anything peripheral, will it?

Have you not read my multiple comments on the subject which stress that there is no need for conscription at this time because the volunteers more than amply fill the needs of the military?

Have you not read my mockery of that goof ball Congressman, Charley Rangel, the Harlem Hot Shot who needs a shot of publicity every now and then so that folks outside of his enclave district will remember that he exists?

Instead of being squelched, if the Cold War had heated up, do you think there would have been a draft?

If, as an example, the actions of the North Koreans, or the Chinese, should precipitate a shooting war, do you think the numbers of our 'peacetime' military would be adequate? Or would some augmentation be necessary?

There will always be opposition to conscription. Just as there has always been opposition to anything that might upset the path to glory laid out by the liberal intelligentsia.

In other times, in other countries, these are the folks who have lain down before the steamrollers of tyranny.

It has been said that at the time of the American Revolution, one third of the people supported the Crown, one third didn't care either way, and the remaining third craved liberty and were willing to fight for it,

It is fortunate for the liberals of today that the signers of the Declaration of Independence fell into that last group. Citizen soldiers did the job.

It was fortunate that a majority of the population supported preservation of the Union in Lincoln's time. Volunteers were augmented by conscripts.

It was fortunate that in World Was I and II, that the minuscule peacetime military could be quickly expanded by volunteers and augmented by conscripts to do what needed to be done.

We all hope, and some of us pray, that conscription will never be necessary again. However if it is, it will happen despite the moaning, groaning, and whining of the modern day version of the American Tories of revolutionary times, and those of similar stripe throughout the history of the US.


You are sick. Volunteers, Amply fill Requirements. You SERIOUSLY NEED to quit watching fox. How about military reqruiters only able to recruit 20% of its needed quota?? How about taking soldiers that lost limbs and got severly injured and force them back to the fight after getting better. Or how about bringing back soon to be grandfathers who thought they have long ago served their requirements. You may be able to pull a quick one on me and half way have some ground to stand on when you talk about there is not a draft right now. There is a draft. Its a back door draft. We DO NOT have all the military we need and WE DO NOT have AMPLE AMMOUNTS of troops. People are NOT throwing themselves to the service. You have a COMPLETELY DISTORTED view of the world.
 
Fantasea said:
Good luck with your job application.
Thank you. I am currently compiling my essays on welfare and Reaganomics. Basically just trying to prove that I am a true policy wonk. But seriously, thank you.
 
Youve Got To Be Kidding! said:
You are sick. Volunteers, Amply fill Requirements. You SERIOUSLY NEED to quit watching fox. How about military reqruiters only able to recruit 20% of its needed quota?? How about taking soldiers that lost limbs and got severly injured and force them back to the fight after getting better. Or how about bringing back soon to be grandfathers who thought they have long ago served their requirements. You may be able to pull a quick one on me and half way have some ground to stand on when you talk about there is not a draft right now. There is a draft. Its a back door draft. We DO NOT have all the military we need and WE DO NOT have AMPLE AMMOUNTS of troops. People are NOT throwing themselves to the service. You have a COMPLETELY DISTORTED view of the world.
The commanders in Iraq say they have all the troops they need.
 
ShamMol said:
Thank you. I am currently compiling my essays on welfare and Reaganomics. Basically just trying to prove that I am a true policy wonk. But seriously, thank you.
You may recall that all of the disasters the socialist-lib-dems predicted would happen if the welfare system was reformed never did materialize.

Consider, too, that Reagan's tax cutting policies resulted in greatly increased tax revenues. That is happening right now as a result of the Bush tax cuts. At this point, the budget deficit is about 20% lower than it was projected to be for FY2005.
 
President Bush never admits when He is wrong . To admit he needs a new Draft would be too much for him.
He would rather loose Iraq than do it.
 
JOHNYJ said:
To admit he needs a new Draft would be too much for him.
He would rather loose Iraq than do it.

You are seriously deluded because if you think that Bush will bring back th draft then honestly you must be a complete moron. No one would bring back the draft unless it was of incredible dire need. Considering the fact that Estimates from the Pentagon I believe are that we will begin pulling out of Iraq in I believe either 2007 or 2006 one of those two years. But Either way there is no need to institute the draft this close to the point in time that we will leave to do so would be absolutely ludicrous. So with that say I really don't think that bush would sink that low. Because if he did his approval ratings would fall through the floor. :doh
 
Fantasea said:
You may recall that all of the disasters the socialist-lib-dems predicted would happen if the welfare system was reformed never did materialize.

Consider, too, that Reagan's tax cutting policies resulted in greatly increased tax revenues. That is happening right now as a result of the Bush tax cuts. At this point, the budget deficit is about 20% lower than it was projected to be for FY2005.
Actually, the paper on welfare was analyzing it after a summer of watching it in both a dpss office (where they hand it out/deny it) and on the street. It included a lot of research. It happened to conclude that federal regulations were too stringent in regards to food stamps and that states had adopted some horrible regulations in regard to it. The main body of it focused in on the lesser known CALWorks and how mothers were denied for absolutely no reason-I spent about a month documenting this. I learned so much doing it...amazing really. I was offered a part-time job as a result of it in a pro-bono law firm in their homelessness prevention division.

Regean's policies were a flop, plain and simple. But honestly, if you try and convince a conservative of that you are just told to shut up and take some prozac (That actually happened twice). That paper was only 15 pages long and not nearly long as my welfare one, but still fun to do.
 
Aaron said:
You are seriously deluded because if you think that Bush will bring back th draft then honestly you must be a complete moron. No one would bring back the draft unless it was of incredible dire need. Considering the fact that Estimates from the Pentagon I believe are that we will begin pulling out of Iraq in I believe either 2007 or 2006 one of those two years. But Either way there is no need to institute the draft this close to the point in time that we will leave to do so would be absolutely ludicrous. So with that say I really don't think that bush would sink that low. Because if he did his approval ratings would fall through the floor. :doh


Please humor me if he does. What would you do??? Seriously? No I think youd forget about as quick as it happens and JUMP on the bandwagon spilling excuses as to why he did it. Bush followers would Worship him even if he hogprinted em accross the forehead (wich hes already done).
 
Aaron said:
You are seriously deluded because if you think that Bush will bring back th draft then honestly you must be a complete moron. No one would bring back the draft unless it was of incredible dire need. Considering the fact that Estimates from the Pentagon I believe are that we will begin pulling out of Iraq in I believe either 2007 or 2006 one of those two years. But Either way there is no need to institute the draft this close to the point in time that we will leave to do so would be absolutely ludicrous. So with that say I really don't think that bush would sink that low. Because if he did his approval ratings would fall through the floor. :doh


OMG I am so sorry I just read the last part of your post? His ratings would fall throught the FLOOR??? OH MY GOD?!!?!! NOT THAT ........ Liek that has not happend. HAHAHHHHAHAHHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA
 
Youve Got To Be Kidding! said:
OMG I am so sorry I just read the last part of your post? His ratings would fall throught the FLOOR??? OH MY GOD?!!?!! NOT THAT ........ Liek that has not happend. HAHAHHHHAHAHHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

If his approval ratings fall to where a majority of Americans aren't supporting him, which it has, it would mean that he is sommitting an illegal act since he is supposed to be representing the majority.
 
Back
Top Bottom