Well, It's Now Officially a Campaign Issue

[therealworldschampion 0]

Oh believe me, I know that both sides are playing the usual election tactics. It's just getting beyond the point of dumb, ESPECIALLY with MTV's draft crap.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ok, if this is true then the Democratic Party can burn in hell and I'll vote for Bush despite how much I hate the scumbag.

 

I'm tired of this from the Democrats.

 

They are the ones who purposed the draft and so they blame Bush for wanting one? Give me a god damn break.

 

John Kerry may be the biggest dickweed since Jerry Falwell.

Hilarious.

 

I just love how melodramatic some people get over certain issues that barely deserve drama in the first place.

 

Edwards mentioning Reeve's death: "It sickened me to the core"

 

Kerry mentions Bush supporting the draft: "The Democratic party can burn in hell"

 

I really hope some of these comments are said in jest, because otherwise they are not just depressing but incredibly alarming as well.

 

I doubt either man supports a draft. When Kerry says that Bush could support a movement on the draft, it may very well not be true. But on the grand scale of lies, it's comparable to Bush saying that Kerry has only passed five bills on health care - trying to prove that Kerry has absolutely no experience with the issue of health care - when Kerry has passed 56 individual bills he has written himself, along with signing off on various amendment bills. This is comparable to Cheney saying that his debate with Edwards was the first time he has ever met the man, despite the fact that there is photographic evidence he's already met him at least three times. There are lies and half-truths being told from both parties. To single out one party for mudslinging on an important issue - like the military - while ignoring the other party for mudslinging on an important issue - like health care - is just irresponsible.

 

Kerry saying that Bush supports the draft isn't fair, because it isn't true.

 

Bush saying that Kerry has no experience with health care bills - and Cheney trying to make an untrue point about Edwards' "excessive" absences in the Senate - aren't fair, because they aren't true either.

 

Just accept the campaigns for what they are, instead of retaliating in these threads with a ridiculously absurd, biased response. We seem to be getting more of them lately as the election gets closer.

Wow, thoroughly and utterly attempting to pretend that there is some moral equivalence between "A vote for Bush is a vote for a draft" and "Kerry only passed 5 bills".

 

Truly, a lengthy dissertation without any real substance behind it.

 

Kudos to you.

-=Mike

[NYU 0]

Ah, kudos to you as well. You managed to leave yet another unneeded sarcastic comment, just to continue to prove your irreplaceable worth in this folder.

 

Both men have told nontruths - I wouldn't go as far as to call them lies yet - on important issues, in order to try to hurt the credibility of their opponent.

 

Color me shocked. You completely skipped over that point just so you could continue to paint your misinformed picture that John Kerry is, indeed, Satan.

 

Congratulations. You did exactly what I expected of you.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ah, kudos to you as well. You managed to leave yet another unneeded sarcastic comment, just to continue to prove your irreplaceable worth in this folder.

And the usual NYU pissing and moaning. I had missed it so.

Both men have told nontruths - I wouldn't go as far as to call them lies yet - on important issues, in order to try to hurt the credibility of their opponent.

Umm, "A draft is very possible under Bush" when Bush has said, SPECIFICALLY, it won't and the military opposes it --- yup, it's pretty much a LIE.

 

Then again, they're also planning on claiming voter intimidation whether it occurs or not.

Color me shocked. You completely skipped over that point just so you could continue to paint your misinformed picture that John Kerry is, indeed, Satan.

Nah. Satan would have markedly better, more credible lies than Kerry has unleashed. He'd also have, you know, a noticeable trace of charisma.

 

Well, going with logic.

Congratulations. You did exactly what I expected of you.

As you did for me. Congrats. You just add to the list of stuff you don't comprehend on a daily basis.

-=Mike

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

god forbid i get caught up in this conversation, but odds are there will be a draft regardless of who wins. Either that or we've suddenly decided Iran and Syria aren't so bad after all.

 

 

rob that picture is hilarious.

[Guest MikeSC]

god forbid i get caught up in this conversation, but odds are there will be a draft regardless of who wins. Either that or we've suddenly decided Iran and Syria aren't so bad after all.

 

 

rob that picture is hilarious.

There is no possibility, whatsoever, of Bush bringing back a draft.

 

Period.

-=Mike

[St. Gabe 0]

Well, I understand that a draft would be political suicide, but if this war continues at the rate it has, where will the troops come from? I hear people shouting that there will be no draft, but no one will give an alternative for a draft if we need more manpower. We have The Reserves, the national guard too, and they are already being sent, so how do we divert a draft, who goes next? I honestly don't know. Please let's discuss this issue.

[Nevermortal 0]

god forbid i get caught up in this conversation, but odds are there will be a draft regardless of who wins. Either that or we've suddenly decided Iran and Syria aren't so bad after all.

 

 

rob that picture is hilarious.

There is no possibility, whatsoever, of Bush bringing back a draft.

 

Period.

-=Mike

But, anything can happen in the WWE.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, I understand that a draft would be political suicide, but if this war continues at the rate it has, where will the troops come from? I hear people shouting that there will be no draft, but no one will give an alternative for a draft if we need more manpower. We have The Reserves, the national guard too, and they are already being sent, so how do we divert a draft, who goes next? I honestly don't know. Please let's discuss this issue.

We can pull all troops out of Europe. We can pull troops from Japan. We have more than a few troops and Iraq is just not as out of control as people love to claim.

-=Mike

[Guest GreatOne]

Well, I understand that a draft would be political suicide, but if this war continues at the rate it has, where will the troops come from? I hear people shouting that there will be no draft, but no one will give an alternative for a draft if we need more manpower. We have The Reserves, the national guard too, and they are already being sent, so how do we divert a draft, who goes next? I honestly don't know. Please let's discuss this issue.

At WHAT rate exactly? You act like this is some slaughter where we're losing a million soldiers every week.

 

And how's it gonna look if Kerry gets in? How's he gonna expand the military when every potential recruit heard his 'Bush=Draft' blather and has basically sworn the military off altogether? Self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

BTW you are aware that the use of reserves and guardsmen didn't just start yesterday, right?

[2GOLD 0]

Actually, I didn't say it sickened me that he mentioned the death of Reeves. I said it was stupid to claim stem cells could cure something when it hasn't been proving exactly what they can and can't do. Not to mention I support stem cell research and until today had no intention of voting for a lesser of two evils since neither seemed the lesser.

 

Nice try though.

[St. Gabe 0]

Well, I understand that a draft would be political suicide, but if this war continues at the rate it has, where will the troops come from? I hear people shouting that there will be no draft, but no one will give an alternative for a draft if we need more manpower. We have The Reserves, the national guard too, and they are already being sent, so how do we divert a draft, who goes next? I honestly don't know. Please let's discuss this issue.

At WHAT rate exactly? You act like this is some slaughter where we're losing a million soldiers every week.

 

And how's it gonna look if Kerry gets in? How's he gonna expand the military when every potential recruit heard his 'Bush=Draft' blather and has basically sworn the military off altogether? Self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

BTW you are aware that the use of reserves and guardsmen didn't just start yesterday, right?

Jeez, Calm Down, I was just asking a question man! I'm confused as to how we will fix the problem. Whether it's Bush or Kerry in office it doesn't matter much. Sure, I'd prefer Kerry, but there isn't too much substantive difference in their future "plans" in Iraq. And I don't "act" like we are losing A "miilion soldiers every week". I was simply stating that progress doesn't seem to be moving along at a rapid clip.

 

Mellow Out, It's the Liberals who are angry though, right?

 

G.O.D.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, I didn't say it sickened me that he mentioned the death of Reeves. I said it was stupid to claim stem cells could cure something when it hasn't been proving exactly what they can and can't do. Not to mention I support stem cell research and until today had no intention of voting for a lesser of two evils since neither seemed the lesser.

 

Nice try though.

An Edwards Outrage

 

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, October 15, 2004; Page A23

 

After the second presidential debate, in which John Kerry used the word "plan" 24 times, I said on television that Kerry has a plan for everything except curing psoriasis. I should have known there is no parodying Kerry's pandering. It turned out days later that the Kerry campaign has a plan -- nay, a promise -- to cure paralysis. What is the plan? Vote for Kerry.

 

This is John Edwards on Monday at a rally in Newton, Iowa: "If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

 

In my 25 years in Washington, I have never seen a more loathsome display of demagoguery. Hope is good. False hope is bad. Deliberately, for personal gain, raising false hope in the catastrophically afflicted is despicable.

 

Where does one begin to deconstruct this outrage?

 

First, the inability of the human spinal cord to regenerate is one of the great mysteries of biology. The answer is not remotely around the corner. It could take a generation to unravel. To imply, as Edwards did, that it is imminent if only you elect the right politicians is scandalous.

 

Second, if the cure for spinal cord injury comes, we have no idea where it will come from. There are many lines of inquiry. Stem cell research is just one of many possibilities, and a very speculative one at that. For 30 years I have heard promises of miracle cures for paralysis (including my own, suffered as a medical student). The last fad, fetal tissue transplants, was thought to be a sure thing. Nothing came of it.

 

As a doctor by training, I've known better than to believe the hype -- and have tried in my own counseling of people with new spinal cord injuries to place the possibility of cure in abeyance. I advise instead to concentrate on making a life (and a very good life it can be) with the hand one is dealt. The greatest enemies of this advice have been the snake-oil salesmen promising a miracle around the corner. I never expected a candidate for vice president to be one of them.

 

Third, the implication that Christopher Reeve was prevented from getting out of his wheelchair by the Bush stem cell policies is a travesty.

 

George Bush is the first president to approve federal funding for stem cell research. There are 22 lines of stem cells now available, up from one just two years ago. As Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics, has written, there are 3,500 shipments of stem cells waiting for anybody who wants them.

 

Edwards and Kerry constantly talk of a Bush "ban" on stem cell research. This is false. There is no ban. You want to study stem cells? You get them from the companies that have the cells and apply to the National Institutes of Health for the federal funding.

 

In his Aug. 7 radio address to the nation, Kerry referred not once but four times to the "ban" on stem cell research instituted by Bush. At the time, Reeve was alive, so not available for posthumous exploitation. But Ronald Reagan was available, having recently died of Alzheimer's.

 

So what does Kerry do? He begins his radio address with the disgraceful claim that the stem cell "ban" is standing in the way of an Alzheimer's cure.

 

This is an outright lie. The President's Council on Bioethics, on which I sit, had one of the world's foremost experts on Alzheimer's, Dennis Selkoe from Harvard, give us a lecture on the newest and most promising approaches to solving the Alzheimer's mystery. Selkoe reported remarkable progress in using biochemicals to clear the "plaque" deposits in the brain that lead to Alzheimer's. He ended his presentation without the phrase "stem cells" having passed his lips.

 

So much for the miracle cure. Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at NIH, has admitted publicly that stem cells as an Alzheimer's cure are a fiction, but that "people need a fairy tale." Kerry and Edwards certainly do. They are shamelessly exploiting this fairy tale, having no doubt been told by their pollsters that stem cells play well politically for them.

 

Politicians have long promised a chicken in every pot. It is part of the game. It is one thing to promise ethanol subsidies here, dairy price controls there. But to exploit the desperate hopes of desperate people with the promise of Christ-like cures is beyond the pale.

 

There is no apologizing for Edwards's remark. It is too revealing. There is absolutely nothing the man will not say to get elected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Oct14.html

[2GOLD 0]

What exactly is a rapid clip?

I'm not sure what that is exactly. Do you mean Iraq? Cause that is actually moving way faster than it should be moving which is causing tons of problems.

 

I really have no clue which you mean isn't moving at a rapid clip.

[St. Gabe 0]

What exactly is a rapid clip?

I'm not sure what that is exactly. Do you mean Iraq? Cause that is actually moving way faster than it should be moving which is causing tons of problems.

 

I really have no clue which you mean isn't moving at a rapid clip.

Progress is not going fast. Do I expect it to, No. But how will we supplement the situation as it progresses onward? Try to answer that as best as you can, if you need any further clarification, just lemme know.

[2GOLD 0]

I can't say it sickens me Mike, cause it doesn't. Makes me shake my head in shame at the levels the Democratic party is lowering themselves too, but it doesn't sicken me.

 

Stem Cells may be able to do such things, but even the research is at least a decade off. It was just a very stupid comment.

 

It's scare politics and I'm not seeing as much from Bush yet. Notice I said Bush and not the wack jobs in the south with the "KERRY WILL BAN THE BIBLE" stupidity.

 

I'm waiting the radio interivew where Kerry or Edwards says, "If Bush is re-elected, he's going to come to your home and shoot your puppy."

 

I don't appreciate using a bold faced lie that only Bush will bring the draft back when the Democrats are the ones pushing for it. Stem Cells may do what they claim but to blame Bush for a draft and act like Kerry won't consider it is what angers me.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hell, as Krauthammer pointed out, we don't even have the tiniest clue why spinal cells do not regenerate. There is no way to guess if stem cells will even do squat.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

What exactly is a rapid clip?

I'm not sure what that is exactly. Do you mean Iraq? Cause that is actually moving way faster than it should be moving which is causing tons of problems.

 

I really have no clue which you mean isn't moving at a rapid clip.

Progress is not going fast. Do I expect it to, No. But how will we supplement the situation as it progresses onward? Try to answer that as best as you can, if you need any further clarification, just lemme know.

 

Basically our purpose is as a secruity force once the government gets in place and if the government gets into trouble with Saddam supporters, then we have to come back in.

 

Right now, our job will probably be done once the government is in place. We will leave maybe 5% or less of our force in the country. I doubt we leave that much.

 

It will not effect any actions we may take against Sudan (since if the UN doesn't come in on that they never need to be listened to again) and Iran (essh, this one I really am not in favor of).

[Guest GreatOne]

Well, I understand that a draft would be political suicide, but if this war continues at the rate it has, where will the troops come from? I hear people shouting that there will be no draft, but no one will give an alternative for a draft if we need more manpower. We have The Reserves, the national guard too, and they are already being sent, so how do we divert a draft, who goes next? I honestly don't know. Please let's discuss this issue.

At WHAT rate exactly? You act like this is some slaughter where we're losing a million soldiers every week.

 

And how's it gonna look if Kerry gets in? How's he gonna expand the military when every potential recruit heard his 'Bush=Draft' blather and has basically sworn the military off altogether? Self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

BTW you are aware that the use of reserves and guardsmen didn't just start yesterday, right?

Jeez, Calm Down, I was just asking a question man! I'm confused as to how we will fix the problem. Whether it's Bush or Kerry in office it doesn't matter much. Sure, I'd prefer Kerry, but there isn't too much substantive difference in their future "plans" in Iraq. And I don't "act" like we are losing A "miilion soldiers every week". I was simply stating that progress doesn't seem to be moving along at a rapid clip.

 

Mellow Out, It's the Liberals who are angry though, right?

 

G.O.D.

And guess what, I was answering.

 

but if this war continues at the rate it has, where will the troops come from?

 

Sure, that's not 'acting like we are losing a million soldiers every week'. You are aware that about 40% of the Army--with all the stretching, you know--is in either Afghanistan/Iraq and all of 2.5% of the Naval Reserve is mobilized. Not exactly 'stretching the military' here.

 

You know for all the whine Kerry does about 'Bush's backdoor draft', who's the one actually MENTIONING it?

 

And you do know that our aim is to train Iraqi forces so that THEY can finish the job right?

[St. Gabe 0]

Well, I understand that a draft would be political suicide, but if this war continues at the rate it has, where will the troops come from? I hear people shouting that there will be no draft, but no one will give an alternative for a draft if we need more manpower. We have The Reserves, the national guard too, and they are already being sent, so how do we divert a draft, who goes next? I honestly don't know. Please let's discuss this issue.

At WHAT rate exactly? You act like this is some slaughter where we're losing a million soldiers every week.

 

And how's it gonna look if Kerry gets in? How's he gonna expand the military when every potential recruit heard his 'Bush=Draft' blather and has basically sworn the military off altogether? Self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

BTW you are aware that the use of reserves and guardsmen didn't just start yesterday, right?

Jeez, Calm Down, I was just asking a question man! I'm confused as to how we will fix the problem. Whether it's Bush or Kerry in office it doesn't matter much. Sure, I'd prefer Kerry, but there isn't too much substantive difference in their future "plans" in Iraq. And I don't "act" like we are losing A "miilion soldiers every week". I was simply stating that progress doesn't seem to be moving along at a rapid clip.

 

Mellow Out, It's the Liberals who are angry though, right?

 

G.O.D.

And guess what, I was answering.

 

but if this war continues at the rate it has, where will the troops come from?

 

Sure, that's not 'acting like we are losing a million soldiers every week'. You are aware that about 40% of the Army--with all the stretching, you know--is in either Afghanistan/Iraq and all of 2.5% of the Naval Reserve is mobilized. Not exactly 'stretching the military' here.

 

You know for all the whine Kerry does about 'Bush's backdoor draft', who's the one actually MENTIONING it?

 

And you do know that our aim is to train Iraqi forces so that THEY can finish the job right?

I'm pretty sure that you just enjoy arguing and being angry. good luck with that

[Guest GreatOne]

Yeah, ok.

 

You ask, and when you don't get the answer you want, I'M the gruff who just wants to argue, gotcha....................

[NYU 0]

Actually, I didn't say it sickened me that he mentioned the death of Reeves. I said it was stupid to claim stem cells could cure something when it hasn't been proving exactly what they can and can't do. Not to mention I support stem cell research and until today had no intention of voting for a lesser of two evils since neither seemed the lesser.

 

Nice try though.

With that Reeve comment, I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about Downhome, who said a few days ago that Edwards' comments "sickened him to the core."

 

I thought it was ridiculously dramatic then. My opinion hasn't changed since.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, I didn't say it sickened me that he mentioned the death of Reeves. I said it was stupid to claim stem cells could cure something when it hasn't been proving exactly what they can and can't do. Not to mention I support stem cell research and until today had no intention of voting for a lesser of two evils since neither seemed the lesser.

 

Nice try though.

With that Reeve comment, I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about Downhome, who said a few days ago that Edwards' comments "sickened him to the core."

 

I thought it was ridiculously dramatic then. My opinion hasn't changed since.

It was offensive and fucking idiotic. Basically claiming that Bush's funding some stem cell research is what left Reeve paralyzed is ridiculous --- especially since the evidence that stem cells might actually cure paralysis is in the unprovable theory stage.

-=Mike

[NYU 0]

Oh Christ, I hope there are better things to get offended about than that.

 

In that speech, Edwards was implying that Bush wasn't doing as much as he could in the field of stem cell research - which he hasn't. The money that Bush has set towards stem cells is not enough to thoroughly research the subject. It's there to quiet the critics, giving Bush something to point to and say "See, I have put some money towards stem cells", but the funding is relatively useless. There really isn't enough cash there to get serious work done.

 

The platform that Kerry and Edwards are running on is that, if they are elected, they will put more money towards stem cell research. There is no set guarantee that people like Christopher Reeve will be cured by these stem cells - but there will be more research done under the Kerry/Edwards administration than the Bush/Cheney one, simply because there will be more funds attributed TO that research.

 

Sure, stem cells might not cure these terrible diseases - but what if they do? Kerry and Edwards, by putting a sizeable amount of money in the project, would be more likely to find out the answer. Rather than Bush and Cheney, who are inching their way into the topic, purely to minimally satisfy those that are calling for it instead of on the basis for their own interest.

 

I said this in the previous thread. Was the speech that Edwards made about curing Parkinson's, Juvenile Diabetes, etc. dumb? Probably so.

 

Was it something to get offended over? God, I hope not. There are so many other things in the world to get adamantly upset over instead of that comment.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh Christ, I hope there are better things to get offended about than that.

 

In that speech, Edwards was implying that Bush wasn't doing as much as he could in the field of stem cell research - which he hasn't.

He's the first one to federally fund ANY research and he also has to deal with legitimate moral complaints that science is not often interested in. And to say "If Kerry is elected, the paralyzed will walk" is about the dumbest thing you could say.

The money that Bush has set towards stem cells is not enough to thoroughly research the subject. It's there to quiet the critics, giving Bush something to point to and say "See, I have put some money towards stem cells", but the funding is relatively useless. There really isn't enough cash there to get serious work done.

There is plenty of private research. Tons of it. All quite legal.

The platform that Kerry and Edwards are running on is that, if they are elected, they will put more money towards stem cell research. There is no set guarantee that people like Christopher Reeve will be cured by these stem cells - but there will be more research done under the Kerry/Edwards administration than the Bush/Cheney one, simply because there will be more funds attributed TO that research.

 

Sure, stem cells might not cure these terrible diseases - but what if they do?

Seeing as how we don't even know WHY spinal cords don't regenerate cells, we have to solve THAT problem before we can even begin to discuss treatments.

 

Edwards' comments imply that the problem can be solved soon, when in fact, they are not even CLOSE to being solved and treatments cannot be devised until we understand the problem.

I said this in the previous thread. Was the speech that Edwards made about curing Parkinson's, Juvenile Diabetes, etc. dumb? Probably so.

 

Was it something to get offended over? God, I hope not. There are so many other things in the world to get adamantly upset over instead of that comment.

It just simply reinforced the insidiously sleazy image of Edwards I have. He's not only an ambulance chaser, he's a faith healer now.

Kerry and Edwards, by putting a sizeable amount of money in the project, would be more likely to find out the answer. Rather than Bush and Cheney, who are inching their way into the topic, purely to minimally satisfy those that are calling for it instead of on the basis for their own interest.

And that is ridiculous. Bush and Cheney are trying to deal with the MORAL problems of this --- and, like it or not, there are some REAL serious moral problems --- while doing what Clinton never did.

 

Namely, providing federal funding of any sort.

-=Mike

[St. Gabe 0]

And that is ridiculous. Bush and Cheney are trying to deal with the MORAL problems of this --- and, like it or not, there are some REAL serious moral problems

to YOU there are moral issues here. It's a very personal thing, those morals, and when you get into legislating morality it doesn't lead to good things, it leads to discord among those who feel their rights are being trampled. Of course that would give you and Great One more reason to be angry at liberals, so that would be a good thing right?

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

There is no possibility, whatsoever, of Bush bringing back a draft.

 

Period.

-=Mike

care to elaborate?

 

and keep in mind the difference between wanting to bring back the draft and having to do it.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Well for starters our military is nowhere near overextended and we aren't suffering heavy losses. We have the forces to fight two wars at once and still defend the U.S. We could easily spend forces to Sudan and still have plenty of people left to rotate into Iraq and people left here.

 

Iraq is nowhere near a big enough problem to warrant needing to bring amatuer fighters into the conflict. When we go for North Korea we'll have Japan and China doing a lot of the work. If we take further actions in the Middle East it'll be with Iraqi military help as well.

 

The U.S. military isn't anywhere near needing help. The only way a draft comes back in this country is if we're getting invaded.

[teke184 0]

There is no possibility, whatsoever, of Bush bringing back a draft.

 

Period.

        -=Mike

care to elaborate?

 

and keep in mind the difference between wanting to bring back the draft and having to do it.

1. The military branches are already meeting their recruiting quotas for the year.

 

2. Training new troops takes roughly 1-2 years. If someone's drafted, they'll be learning their job for about 75% of their stint, which is a big waste of time and money.

 

3. Draftees won't want to be there and quite a few current troops wouldn't want them there either because they know that the weakest link in their unit could get them killed.

 

They'd rather depend on someone who wants to be there than someone who's more concerned with putting their time in and getting out with the least amount of damage possible.

[Guest MikeSC]

And that is ridiculous. Bush and Cheney are trying to deal with the MORAL problems of this --- and, like it or not, there are some REAL serious moral problems

to YOU there are moral issues here. It's a very personal thing, those morals, and when you get into legislating morality it doesn't lead to good things, it leads to discord among those who feel their rights are being trampled. Of course that would give you and Great One more reason to be angry at liberals, so that would be a good thing right?

Were the tests done on blacks in the 1950's OK?

How about Mengele's tests on Jews?

The early LSD experiments?

 

Like it or not, morality SHOULD have a role in this. If somebody wishes to say that nobody should legislate morality, they should also demand that the Tuskegee experiments get set back up.

 

After all, what are a few innocent blacks when compared to science?

are to elaborate?

 

and keep in mind the difference between wanting to bring back the draft and having to do it.

We do not have to do it. No military leader wants it. The President does not want it. The Congress does not want it. The army is not nearly as over-stretched a Kerry claims (how many troops are in Iraq? 250,000? Do you realize what a small percentage of the total military that is?)

 

I could more easily claim that a vote for Kerry will lead to a draft since the military, by most polls, support Bush over Kerry by a 3:1 margin. Hard to keep people enlisted when they do not support the CinC.

 

There is absolutely zero possibility of a draft under Bush. Zero.

-=Mike