Charles Rangel Votes Against His Own Bill!

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) did something a little unusual yesterday. First he protested when Republican leadership scheduled his own bill for a vote.

Then he sent out a letter encouraging his Democratic colleagues to vote against it.

Rangel�s bill, which the leadership had placed on the suspension calendar, would create a national-service draft under which all 18- to 26-year-olds would serve in the military or perform two years of national service as determined by the president. Rangel has been advocating a draft for several years, but he argued yesterday that the bill was too important for the suspension calendar, �which is reserved for non-controversial items,� he said in a statement.

www.hillnews.com...

=============================================

Can you say, "Political maneuvering by the libs?"

What an asinine ploy by the Dems...create a bill that they can use to claim that President Bush is going to reinstate the draft, and then vote AGAINST the bill YOU WROTE!!! This guy needs to be thrown out of congress.....


[edit on 7-10-2004 by John bull 1]

You know the sad thing is, that they're up in Wahington D.C. wasting away time, and time is money. Since time is money, then they're wasting tax money.

I don't understand this guys logic niether. Look at some quotes Rangel gave.

�I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration,� his statement continued.

but he argued yesterday that the bill was too important for the suspension calendar, �which is reserved for non-controversial items,� he said in a statement.

Democrats said Republican leaders gave them no notice that the Rangel bill was headed to the floor.

This last quote is what got me. Do the Liberals have to cry and complain about every little thing that doesn't go their way?

I'm with you on kicking people like this out of Congress. They're just a waste of everyone's time!

[edit on 7/10/04 by Intelearthling]

He didn't really want to reinstate the draft when he proposed the bill. He wanted to bring up debate, and have people question whether this war would be viewed so favorably if everyone had to contribute equally to it via a draft. Obviously he made his point due to this, and other msg's concerning this bill.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
He didn't really want to reinstate the draft when he proposed the bill. He wanted to bring up debate,

Why bring it at all if you're not for it? He's just wasting a lot of precious time he could be working on issues that are critical to our domestic problems if he a serious Congressman.

Newsflash!

These types of things happen in our Congress everday, on both sides.

Forcing the gay marriage amendment to be voted on when everyone knew it would be soundly defeated is yet another example of "wasting a lot of precious time."

It happens all the time..

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
He didn't really want to reinstate the draft when he proposed the bill. He wanted to bring up debate, and have people question whether this war would be viewed so favorably if everyone had to contribute equally to it via a draft. Obviously he made his point due to this, and other msg's concerning this bill.

Actually, no, he wanted to do exactly what he did, scare the public into believing that President Bush was going to draft their children, and it worked. There has been an email scare about it for months, bogus news stories by CBS where they stepped on it again claiming a mother was so upset that her kids were going to be upset when she was really the president of the anti draft movement in Pennsylvania, and even spawned several threads here on ATS that claimed the same thing. Thankfully, there are those of us who actually do research rather than go off like a chicken with our heads cut off who proved this trash to be just what it was...a ploy by Rangel, and a very poorly conceived one at that. Now he tries to get out of it with confusing and misleading statements, and outright lies...sorry, not buying it...if is looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays eggs like a duck...it's probably Charlie Rangel.....

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Newsflash!

These types of things happen in our Congress everday, on both sides.

Forcing the gay marriage amendment to be voted on when everyone knew it would be soundly defeated is yet another example of "wasting a lot of precious time."

It happens all the time..

We aren't talking about simply "wasting time". We're talking about a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people into believing one party was doing something when it was the exact opposite thing! It's political dirty pool, and it needs to be brought out in the open, and the perpetrators publicly embarrassed at the least!

Wasting time would be talking about the effects of cow farts on the ozone layer�this is something else totally�.

No, he didn't, and he's said as much. He never claimed Bush was behind this bill, so don't lie like the Repub buddies you must have been listening to.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
Forcing the gay marriage amendment to be voted on when everyone knew it would be soundly defeated is yet another example of "wasting a lot of precious time."

The only reason this bill was defeated is because it's election time and Congress wants to reclaim their seats after election.

He never claimed Bush was behind this bill, so don't lie like the Repub buddies you must have been listening to.

Kerry claims Bush might reinstate draft
Kerry: Draft Likely to Return Under Bush

If the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, voting against the bill this close to election day would have a negative impact on whether or not they get re-elected. Not the other way around.

The amendment will likely never be passed due to the stringent requirements on approving a constitutional amendment. Bush knew this, and his guys in Congress knew this. The reason why they 'wasted time' with this issue to begin with is because they are playing Americans against fellow Americans so that they can garner more support for their perilous hopes for re-election.

That's not Rangel's comments, and Kerry's comments have nothing to do with Rangel's bill. Kerry believes that, as do I personally. If you can find a Kerry, or Rangel, or any reputable Congressman saying that George Bush was the one behind this bill, do tell.

Ok, you are right, but isn't it even worse that SENATORS Kerry and Edwards are trying to scare the American people by saying that Bush is pushing for a draft, when it is obvious that this is a Democratic bill and has absolutely nothing to do with Bush or anyone in Bush's party?

As far as I know, their comments or feelings have nothing to do with the bill Rangel proposed, as I already said. Like them, I too feel that there is a good chance the draft will be reinstated if we continue on this course that this administration is set on. This isn't because of Rangel's bill; it's because of the approach our leaders are taking on foreign matters, and due to the current state of our military, and due to highly volatile situations in N.Korea and Iran.

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
As far as I know, their comments or feelings have nothing to do with the bill Rangel proposed, as I already said. Like them, I too feel that there is a good chance the draft will be reinstated if we continue on this course that this administration is set on. This isn't because of Rangel's bill; it's because of the approach our leaders are taking on foreign matters, and due to the current state of our military, and due to highly volatile situations in N.Korea and Iran.

You can delude yourself as much as you like, but Rangel's bill was written and introduced to do exactly what it did...it was a scare tactic for the Dems to use against the President. It started a bogus email scare, and Kerry used it to strike fear in people to attempt to dissuade them from voting for Bush. Of course Rangel isn't going to admit it! Jeeze, get a clue, will you? Of course, he back tracked so fast on it today and yesterday you'd think he was running from the police or something.

There will be no draft. The military has met its recruitment goals for the year, and the Air Force is actually reducing its numbers. You're as bad as the woman in PA running around like Henny Penny..."The sky is falling"!!!

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
The military has met its recruitment goals for the year, and the Air Force is actually reducing its numbers.

Is that true?

Then explain: www.nytimes.com...

Or are they lying too? It shows that the military fills over 1/3 of it's annual quota before the year even starts, by adding extras from the previous year. In 2005, due to lower recruitment, the "extras" from the last year amount to less than 1/5 of their quota for that year. That is recruitment going down. In response, they've lowered standards to help enlist more people that would have otherwise been turned away in recent years. If recruitment was so robust, why would they do this? Hmm?

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON

Or are they lying too? It shows that the military fills over 1/3 of it's annual quota before the year even starts, by adding extras from the previous year. In 2005, due to lower recruitment, the "extras" from the last year amount to less than 1/5 of their quota for that year. That is recruitment going down. In response, they've lowered standards to help enlist more people that would have otherwise been turned away in recent years. If recruitment was so robust, why would they do this? Hmm?

Again, you show your total lack of knowledge and propensity for revisionism. The "extras" you refer to are in what is called "Delayed Enlistment". It is a program to allow those who wish to enlist in a particular career field to do so with a guaranteed job. The technical school they need may not have any openings until months down the line, so the individual enters delayed enlistment to wait for that job. It's been done for years. I've been in for over 20 years myself, and it was a program that MOST enlistees took advantage of. It has NOTHING to do with fudging the numbers or lying as you claim.

Lowering of standards by the miniscule amounts, 2 points on a test or .5% of all personnel is insignificant. Years ago, you could join the Army without a high school diploma. Now you need a GED or must get one within a certain time frame after enlisting. They are simply allowing more people to enlist who would not normally be able to under present conditions.

Nice try, but no cigar. Do more research next time instead of just looking at the NY Times. They are the newspaper equivalent of CBS these days...

When someone proves you wrong, you are doing what basically amounts to sticking your tongue out and yelling "neener neener neener you're lying!!" Very Republican~

Some of you can be so delusional.

Did I lie about any numbers? Did I fudge the numbers? Those are the numbers. Just because the numbers prove what you said to be wrong does not mean I lied, or that I fudged the numbers. Those are the numbers from the article. Are you calling them a liar?

Argue however you want ... if our recruitment was as high as in previous years, they would not need to be lowering requirements. If our recruitment this past year was as high as in previous years, we would be starting at the 1/3 quota filled like most years, instead of only 1/5 the quota being filled for 2005. If all branches were meeting their goals, the National Guard wouldn't have missed reaching it's quota for the first time in a decade.

But of course it's no surprise that people don't want to sign up for the NATIONAL Guard anymore, seeing as how our government calls them up to go serve in Iraq. Now why would we be relying on reservists again if our current military recruitment is on such an upswing?

[edit on 8-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]

Originally posted by W_HAMILTON
When someone proves you wrong, you are doing what basically amounts to sticking your tongue out and yelling "neener neener neener you're lying!!" Very Republican~

Some of you can be so delusional.

Did I lie about any numbers? Did I fudge the numbers? Those are the numbers. Just because the numbers prove what you said to be wrong does not mean I lied, or that I fudged the numbers. Those are the numbers from the article. Are you calling them a liar?

Argue however you want ... if our recruitment was as high as in previous years, they would not need to be lowering requirements. If our recruitment this past year was as high as in previous years, we would be starting at the 1/3 quota filled like most years, instead of only 1/5 the quota being filled for 2005. If all branches were meeting their goals, the National Guard wouldn't have missed reaching it's quota for the first time in a decade.

But of course it's no surprise that people don't want to sign up for the NATIONAL Guard anymore, seeing as how our government calls them up to go serve in Iraq. Now why would we be relying on reservists again if our current military recruitment is on such an upswing?

[edit on 8-10-2004 by W_HAMILTON]

Well, since you ask the question in such a straight forward way, I'll answer you in the same straight forward way. Yes, you and the article both lie. The article because it is intentionally misleading, you because you have been shown that it is incorrect and misleading, and you still perpetrate the lie. You are taking the word of a newspaper that has had its credibility severely questioned as of late, and, along with the LA Times, is one of the most liberally biased rags of the main stream press in the nation. They wouldn't print the truth on this subject because it wouldn't be news.

Being active duty Air Force, I have several troops who are being denied reenlistment because of the AF draw down of nearly 14,000. Two of the three are doing cross service swaps to the Army so that they may continue their military service. The simple fact is that the services HAVE MET all of their enlistment goals for the year, and your skewed "reporting" to the contrary will not change that fact.

Do better research. This makes you look foolish.

www.airforce.com...

You can spin it however you want, a yes or no answer would suffice:

Did the National Guard meet it's quota in 2004?

Is the army starting with a smaller portion of it's 2005 quota already filled than in previous years, which is directly due to lower recruitment interest?

I'll say it again, call me a liar and a liberal or whatever. If recruitment was going so well, they wouldn't have to lower requirements. If recruitment was going so well, they wouldn't be starting off the 2005 with almost half the number of recruits it normally starts out at. If recruitment was going so well, the National Guard wouldn't have failed to meet its requirements.

The facts speak for themselves.