NADER is now LYING about Kerry and the DRAFT!

[Dems Will Win]

Nader is saying the DRAFT is going to be reinstated (he's right about that) but then he says Kerry's proposed addition of 40,000 troops will require a DRAFT.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_draft_041704,00.html

ANOTHER LIE FROM THE MAN IN 2000 WHO SAID THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS!!

Kerry's plan actually will avoid reinstatement of the DRAFT as it gives more flexibility to the Prez and the troops will NOT be drafted!

Here are the facts. The DRAFT is coming but it's the Republicans who are currently quietly activating the Selective Service System NOT THE DEMOCRATS.

BUSH, NOT KERRY, is spending $28 million to reduce the DRAFT ACTIVATION TIME from the current 8 months to 75 days by March 31, 2005, conveniently after the election. They are also filling the 10,000 empty DRAFT BOARD seats and gearing up the Alternative Service for the very first time in decades so that it is ready to go within 96 days of March 31, 2005. BUSH is conducting NATIONWIDE training exercises of the ENTIRE SSS process, and will even be lining up guys in their underwear this summer to ready the Medical Exam system. They are also movuing from "planning" to "groundwork" in the creation of a new SPECIAL SKILLS DRAFT that will DRAFT tens of thousands of programmers to develop software for STAR WARS and thousands of linguists and engineers to help conquer CENTRAL ASIA (2006 - 2008).

NADER IS A LIAR ONCE AGAIN. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUSH AND KERRY. KERRY HAS A PLAN TO AVOID EVER HAVING TO DRAFT (outside of a Chinese invasion), WHILE BUSH IS ACTIVELY SPENDING $28 MILLION TO HAVE THE FIRST LOTTERY OF 20 YEAR-OLDS BY JUNE 15, 2005.

THIS HAS BEEN AN OFFICIAL MESSAGE FROM DEMS WILL WIN, DU'S DRAFT EXPERT.

BUSH '04 = DRAFT '05

[Dems Will Win]

1. IN FACT A VOTE FOR NADER IS A VOTE FOR BUSH IS A VOTE FOR THE DRAFT!!

[G_j]

2. I don't think you

are allowed to post identical posts in two forums at the same time.

[Dems Will Win]

3. Actually you are encouraged to do so, since different people read

the different forums. I usually keep the DRAFT discussions in General Discussion only but since since the ersatz Repuke candidate Nader is accusing Kerry unfairly it is now a Campaign issue as well (GOOD!).

[Cronus Protagonist]

85. Wear your "Bush 2004 = DRAFT 2005" Buttons everywhere!

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[HFishbine]

4. You're a little short on facts

Aside from the rather twisted, vague and unsubstantiated circular argument that "Kerry's plan actually will avoid reinstatement of the DRAFT as it gives more flexibility to the Prez and the troops will NOT be drafted," you offer no proof that Nader is lying.

[bryant69]

5. Wouldn't the proof be on Nader to proove his assertion?

I mean he is the one making the assertion, and frankly he seems determined to follow his former strategy of saying that there is no difference between republicans and democrats.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[HFishbine]

10. That's seperate

from the charge that Nader is lying. No proof is offered for that assertion.

Nader's assumption is explained by this:

"Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said the warning is based on the U.S. Selective Service System's recent call for draft board volunteers, an extended U.S. military and calls by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and Congress to expand the military, the Boston Herald reported Friday."

Where's the lie?

[sangha]

17. More spin

It defies logic to describe the refutation of the lie as being another issue completely separate from the lie itself.

[HFishbine]

22. Okay then...

Where's the lie?

[sangha]

24. Talk about spinning out both sides of one's mouth

You agree that the burden of proof is on Nader, and then turn around and ask for proof that Nader lied

[HFishbine]

29. It's not that hard

Nader made an assertion based on factual realities. Those facts may not be irrefutable proof of an eventual outcome (how can any prediction of the future be?), but they at least butress his opinion. Nothing factual is offered however to refute Nader's claims, much less to pin a lie on him.

Nader makes a prediction based on facts. He is called a liar with no evidence. See the distinction?

[sangha]

33. No, it's not hard, which is why you shouldn't be getting it so wrong

assertion: Nader will re-instate the draft

factual reality the assertion is based on: His lips were moving

I just made a prediction based on facts. Nader's lips WERE moving

[HFishbine]

36. I can't continue a conversation

if you're going to flee reality. Nobody asserted that Nader will reinstate the draft.

[sangha]

39. That's no surprise

Nobody asserted that Nader will reinstate the draft

I just asserted it, and now you flee reality.

[HFishbine]

42. This would be fun

if I were nine. C'ya.

[sangha]

45. Then come back in a couple of years

.

[shooga]

83. explore nader -- the RICH A$$hole

explore nader -- the {rich} A$$hole


http://www.explorenader04.org

[kiahzero]

73. Maybe lie is too strong then

Maybe "Ralph is a moron with an inability to make logical deductions" would be more accurate?

If the draft board is being expanded because of actions by current-President Bush, how exactly is that evidence that Kerry is planning on reinstating the draft?

He knows that the draft board is being expanded by Bush, and he used it to try and claim that Kerry is for a draft. Therefore, he is either a fool (didn't know any better) or a dishonest man (knew better, and said what he said anyway). Which is it?

[HFishbine]

75. Where

has Nader claimed Kerry is for a draft?

[kiahzero]

76. On his website

He again spouts the lie that Kerry and Bush are no different, attempting to make readers believe that Kerry is for the draft.

To be more specific, Nader claims that a draft is imminent under Kerry or Bush, and also claims that Kerry positions support this erroneous assumption.

If Nader does not believe that Kerry supports a draft, why would his spokesperson use a Kerry position in an attempt to demonstrate that a draft is inevitable?

[NNN0LHI]

7. "you offer no proof that Nader is lying"?? Nader's lips were moving

Thats all the proof any sensible person would need.

Don

[Dems Will Win]

9. Nader is taking Kerry's plan to make the DRAFT unnecessary and then

saying it's a plan to reinstate the DRAFT when it is the exact opposite. Nader is not stupid. It's a lie, straight-out and he knows it. Do you really think Kerry and the Dems want a draft?

Yet Bush is spending the $28 mil to reactivate the DRAFT by June of 2005

Read: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

Nader never mentions this document. LYING THROUGH OMISSION of key facts, the favorite Republican tactic.

[HFishbine]

15. Nader

does assert, quite correctly, "The Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, as the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place."

Still haven't seen evidence of Kerry's "plan to make the draft unnecessary."

[sangha]

23. more spin

Still haven't seen evidence of Kerry's "plan to make the draft unnecessary."

Still haven't seen evidence to support Nader's lie. I guess you've given up trying to defend Nader's integrity.

Smart move

[kiahzero]

79. How exactly is that the fault of Kerry?

Does Kerry secretly run the Pentagon?

The draft is coming because Bush and his appointees want it to come. As for Kerry's plan to make it unnecessary, I can't find it on his website, but his plan is essentially to make working for the military more attractive (better pay, better benefits, less likely to have your ass shot off in an elective war), so that voluntary recruitment increases.

[sangha]

13. And you're a little short on arguments

The burden of proof is on the one making the accusation (that would be Ralph, and his supporters) not the one being accused, or his defenders.

[HFishbine]

16. As noted

there are two issues, Nader's accuracy about why he believes a draft is coming and the poster's assertions that Nader is lying. Nader substantiates his view, the poster does not.

[sangha]

19. The notation of lies doesn't make them the truth

and the issue of whether Nader lied is not completely seperate from what he said. It's Nader's burden (and his supporters) to prove his accusation is not a lie.

[HFishbine]

21. As noted

Nader gives the reasons for his assertions. The poster claiming Nader is lying offers nothing more than unsubstantiated circular logic.

[sangha]

27. Noting the lies doesn't making them true

Nader gives the reasons for his assertions.

Nope. Nader gave lies. The burden of proof is on him and his supporters to substantiate their accusation. The only circular logic here is when you're asked to prove Nader's claim, and you respond "OK, prove Nader is lying, and then I'll prove he is telling the truth"

[HFishbine]

34. So you're saying Nader is lying when he observes:

"The Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, as the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place."

Or when his spokesperson notes, "calls by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and Congress to expand the military."

Maybe it would be helpful if you could point out what statement you think is a lie.

[sangha]

41. More spin

The initial post clearly identified the lie. Pretending otherwise about this won't help your credibility.

[kiahzero]

88. Neither are the lie.

They are the truth the lie is based on.

Truth A: Kerry says we need more military.
Truth B: Pentagon, under Bush and Rumsfeld's authority, are gearing up for a draft.
Statement C: Kerry favors a draft.
Nader's Implication: A && B -> C

The assertion that this implication is valid is false. As stated above, either Nader is a fool or a liar. Perhaps we should not be so quick to assume that he is not a fool?

Edit: typo

[Dems Will Win]

35. Nader is saying Kerry is Humphrey in '68 (LIE!)

Nader is saying there is no difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq (LIE!)

Nader is saying Kerry and the Dems want a DRAFT (LIE!)

Nader never mentions the official SSS document that gears up the DRAFT by June of 2005 (LIE THROUGH OMISSION!). he doesn't want to MENTION THAT DOC, AS YOUNG PEOPLE WILL BE SCARED TO DEATH BY IT AND VOTE FOR KERRY IN DROVES, IGNORING POOR LITTLE OLD RALPH.

IT'S WORSE WHEN NADER LIES LIKE THIS AS HE USED TO HAVE SUCH INTEGRITY. WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUSH AND KERRY LIKE HUMPHREY AND NIXON IN '68 (LIE!).

[HFishbine]

38. Now you're just dissembling

"Nader is saying there is no difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq" -- Where?

"Nader is saying Kerry and the Dems want a DRAFT" -- Where?

"WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUSH AND KERRY LIKE HUMPHREY AND NIXON IN '68" -- Where?

[sangha]

43. No, you're dissembling

When people said Nader's assertion was a lie, you said it was up tp them to prove their case. If you're going to challenge someone else's assertion, then you're going to have to prove them wrong.

[Dems Will Win]

47. It's LYING through conflation

They say Bush moveing to reinstate the draft and then in the next breath saying Dems want to expand military so that young people think the Dems want the DRAFT too. Yet they are slightly expanding active-troop levels to make a draft unnecessary!

That's the big lie, through clever conflation and omission, Nader and spokesmen are saying no difference between Dems and Repubs (LIE!) as in 2000. I guess you forgot about that big lie in 2000. He's at it again...

[seabeyond]

6. ah, nadar wouldnt lie

he is the good guy right.......without challenge

[AGD4y2357y]

8. I don't care who is in the white house

Have you actually been paying attention to Iraq?

Anyone with half a brain can see anyone short of god him self in the white house is going to have to call for a draft if we continue to stay.

It's vietnam all over again.

[Dems Will Win]

12. Not if you bring in tens of thousands of NATO troops

The Russians want to come and join the party too, if they can get some contracts.

Then it's not a U.S./British Crusade, it's a NATO/U.N. occupation. I'd keep the Turks out however, as they just want to kill Kurds.

THe only real solution is to allow Iraq to break up into 3 smaller states and that will eventually happen. They will never live together in peace.

[AGD4y2357y]

18. My god man what are you saying?

"The Russians want to come and join the party too, if they can get some contracts. "

Talk about imperialism 101 !!!! I'm sure the Iraqis will be VERY appreciative of those who want to come to Iraq to make money off of the blood of Iraqis. Hell, let's invite everyone to have a piece of the pie.

Do you realize you sound like bush? Blood for oil is OK so long as bush isn't in charge I guess. Jesus christ maybe nader has a point.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AGD4y2357y]

26. Nope but it's a minimum requirement

as you well know.

The violence in Iraq is only going to escalate - especially with "dems" who think everything will be ok once we bring in other nations hoping to get some blood money too.

[sangha]

31. You set the bar pretty. It sounds self-serving

given the wild assumptions about what other people are thinking. In my experience, people who think they can read other people's minds are operating at less than 100%

[AGD4y2357y]

32. My apologies

I assumed most people had a good reading comprehension level. I apologize to anyone who I've made "wild assumptions about" in that regard.

[sangha]

37. You assumed you can read minds in your previous post

so I think it's inadvisable for you to make wise cracks and assumptions about other people's reading comprehension.

[AGD4y2357y]

44. You know

when I write "the pirate is in the ship" I assume a person reading it is thinking "the pirate is in the ship" instead of "a crocodile is running around a lake". If people are not thinking that then they probably have poor reading comprehension.

[sangha]

46. Here's something you obviously don't know

When you claim to be able to read other people's minds, you lower your credibility

[AGD4y2357y]

51. You also lower your credibility

when you fail to address the original point and sling mud. If must sling mud at least do it and TRY to make an actual point.

[sangha]

55. The point is

if your argument requires you to claim telepathic powers in order to support it, your argument isn't credible. I don't need to address a point made on the basis of telepathic powers.

SO much for reading comprehension

[Dems Will Win]

25. So we are supposed to stay and not let others in

I'd rather we never went in. The real solution will be to let Iraq become 3 states and sort it out by themselves. They should keep all the oil for themselves--although we shouldn't burn any more oil because of global warming.

As Kerry said, he wants the US to go renewable energy so we never have to send soldiers to die for oil again...

[AGD4y2357y]

30. Yup

"So we are supposed to stay and not let others in"

If you think bringing people in for the incentive of making blood money (oh I'm sorry I forgot the rove term - "contracts") is a good idea then there's no point in even talking to you. I haven't been able to get repubs to understand it - I don't see why I would have any better luck with you.

Unfortunately that's the only way most nations will come in. They are going to want something in return - and it's going to be paid for with Iraqi blood.

Best idea is to get out as soon as possible.

[LoZoccolo]

11. This kind of doesn't matter who initiated the draft.

I don't know if we'll need to have a draft or not; I think the bigger issue is who depleted our military unnecessarily by fighting a war we didn't need to fight, which led to this situation. And who put a bunch of people in the government that advocate a policy of preventative war to lead to this as well.

[Dems Will Win]

14. That's for dang sure, and his name is BUSHCHENEYRUMMYWOLFOWITZ!

[G_j]

28. correction

>"Here are the facts. The DRAFT is coming but it's the Republicans who are currently quietly activating the Selective Service System NOT THE DEMOCRATS."


see:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/010203B.rangel.oped.htm

Bring Back the Draft
By Charles B. Rangel
New York Times | Opinion

Tuesday 31 december 2002

WASHINGTON | President Bush and his administration have declared a war against terrorism that may soon involve sending thousands of American troops into combat in Iraq. I voted against the Congressional resolution giving the president authority to carry out this war -- an engagement that would dwarf our military efforts to find Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.

But as a combat veteran of the Korean conflict, I believe that if we are going to send our children to war, the governing principle must be that of shared sacrifice. Throughout much of our history, Americans have been asked to shoulder the burden of war equally.

That's why I will ask Congress next week to consider and support legislation I will introduce to resume the military draft.

Carrying out the administration's policy toward Iraq will require long-term sacrifices by the American people, particularly those who have sons and daughters in the military. Yet the Congress that voted overwhelmingly to allow the use of force in Iraq includes only one member who has a child in the enlisted ranks of the military -- just a few more have children who are officers.

..more..

[Dems Will Win]

40. Rangel's bill was a protest--it will never even come to the floor

Yet the real DRAFT is already in place and due to go into action after April 1, 2005 if a re-elected Bush asks Congress for it.

That is what anyone on DU should focus on, not the Rangel Red Herring that Nader and Rove are throwing out to fool young people.

Wake up and smell the lottery balls!

[G_j]

48. that doesn't make your statement correct

which it is NOT. If you are going to create a post calling to task somebody about not telling the 'truth', you might be more careful with your own statements. BTW, please show me where Rangel states his proposal is a "protest" and not serious.

[G_j]

50. and I would also be interested in

a source for this: "he says Kerry's proposed addition of 40,000 troops will require a DRAFT."

I just went and read the article in LBN: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_draft_041704,00.html
and this is not in it. ?

[sangha]

53. I would be interested in hearing why you conflate "Rangel" with "the Dems"

So far, the only evidence that supports your claim that "the Dems" want a draft, is Rangel's bill. The last time I looked, "Rangel" was "a Dem" and not "the Dems"

[G_j]

58. bye

I didn't ask you


:hi:

on edit, but if you have an answer to my actual question you are welcome to supply it.

[sangha]

61. Gee that was some defense

What are people to think if you make an argument you won't defend?

And what if it's followed by the bankrupt excuse that you don't have to defend what you said because I won't answer a question you didn't ask me?

[G_j]

67. ok, I'll ask you... n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. What the hell are you talking about? What "real" draft are you...

...discussing? H.R.163 and S.89 represent the REAL and ONLY draft legislation, and they are CURRENTLY sitting in committee in their respective Houses waiting for the green light. $25 million has been allocated to the Selective Service System to get their systems up and running by mid-2005

One more point...it doesn't matter who sponsors a bill, or for what reasons. The Dems thought that the GOP would never vote for a bill involving the draft of women, but a lot of folks never thought women would ever be involved in combat. Both versions of the bill are identical, and both call for the draft of men and women between the ages of 18 and 26, with NO deferments.

Bottomline...all that matters is that a bill gets passed or not passed.

[Dems Will Win]

56. Again the Rangel bill drafts women and will never even come to the floor!

You say:

"H.R.163 and S.89 represent the REAL and ONLY draft legislation, and they are CURRENTLY sitting in committee in their respective Houses waiting for the green light."

That is incorrect. These are bills that will never pass and the DRAFT law already exists and just needs a trigger resolution to activate the male-only DRAFT for combat.

Do your homework.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

60. No...you do YOUR homework, pal. Those bills WILL pass if the...

...NeoCons retain their power in the White House and Congress after the 2004 elections. If we have elections.

Speaking of homework, do you have a link to a document that supports your contention, or are you just posting off the top of your head?

[Dems Will Win]

68. I guess your dog ate your homework!

The Rangel bill will never even be allowed to come to the floor, just as NONE of Rangel's bills have come to the floor since the '94 takeover of the House.

The Repubs will NEVER allow a vote as the bill calls for the DRAFTING OF WOMEN which the GOP HATES.

There already is a Selective Service and all it needs is a trigger vote, so

RANGEL AND HOLLING'S BILLS ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!! IN FACT, HOLLINGS SAID HE WOULDN'T VOTE FOR HIS OWN BILL IF IT DOES COME UP FOR A VOTE!! IT'S A PLOY TO GET THE DRAFT ON THE RADAR.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

80. Where's YOUR documentation? I don't think you have any!...

Keep posting on this subject...you're keeping me amused with your blusterings.

[ButterflyBlood]

84. no, they can't

those bills are proposed in the 108th Congress, and can't be be passed in the 109th Congress. All bills that aren't passed die at the end of the session they were proposed in. Drop your bullshit.

[ButterflyBlood]

82. they can't be passed in 2005

all bills that haven't been passed by the end of a session are dead. new congress, completely clean slate. basic fact. those bills will be dead in 2005.

[Dems Will Win]

54. Here is the Kerry strategy on Terrorism, what will really work

But nothing else will matter unless we win the war of ideas. In failed states from South Asia to the Middle East to Central Africa, the combined weight of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education, and rapid population growth presents the potential for explosive violence and the enlistment of entire new legions of terrorists. In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, almost sixty percent of the population is under the age of 30, unemployed and unemployable, in a breeding ground for present and future hostility. And according to a Pew Center poll, fifty percent or more of Indonesians, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Palestinians have confidence in bin Laden to “do the right thing regarding world affairs”

We need a major initiative in public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. For the education of the next generation of Islamic youth, we need an international effort to compete with radical Madrassas. We have seen what happens when Palestinian youth have been fed a diet of anti-Israel propaganda. And we must support human rights groups, independent media and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture from the grass-roots up. Democracy won't come overnight, but America should speed that day by sustaining the forces of democracy against repressive regimes and by rewarding governments which take genuine steps towards change.

We cannot be deterred by letting America be held hostage by energy from the Middle East. If I am President, we will embark on a historic effort to create alternative fuels and the vehicles of the future – to make this country energy independent of Mideast oil within ten years. So our sons and daughters will never have to fight and die for it.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0227.html

[sangha]

49. Very misleading

Just last night you were criticizing those who post lies. Now, in a discussion of whether KERRY (not Rangel) will reinstate a draft, you post something about how RANGEL called for a draft.

Yeah, I know your defense. Someone claimed that the Dems don't want a draft, so you posted how Rangel, a Dem, wants a draft. Very misleading.

I'm sure you understand that "Rangel" is not "THE Dems". RANGEL is "A Dem". It's misleading to characterize all Dems as a group on the basis of what one Dems says or does. It's like saying "the Dems want a Dept of Peace" merely because one Dem, Kucinich, says he wants a Dept of Peace. It's also like saying "Black people are thieves" merely because you were once the victim of a black thief.

[G_j]

57. give me a break!

I began the post with the statement I was correcting. It was crystal clear what I was addressing. That is not misleading in anyway.
WTF is your problem?

[sangha]

64. No breaks. You should defend your assertions

and not ask for "breaks"

You refuted the idea that "the Dems" aren't calling for a draft by posting about *ONE* Dem, but you're unwilling to explain how what "one Dem" says refutes the position of every other Dem.

[G_j]

66. Democrat John Conyers

co-sponsor, makes it a plural. Does THAT answer you question?

silly nit-picking :shrug:

the statement I corrected was not accurate.

[G_j]

81. typical

you come in like gangbusters take lots of pot-shots and then when confronted with facts you can no longer twist, you disappear. Just as in the thread from yesterday you insisted on bringing up here.

[Nlighten1]

59. Congress must approve on Bush's plan.

Praytell how did Kerry vote on it?

[Dems Will Win]

62. There has been no vote

The DRAFT ACTIVATION is being hidden in a so-called Performance Plan for FY 2004

(http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html)

The only vote will be if Bush is re-elected and goes to the Congress in 2005 and says we will not cut and run and asks for the DRAFT.

[Nlighten1]

86. So if Bush isn't re-selected...

will the draft die?

[Dark]

63. Oh, god.

I'm going to be twenty on June 15, 2005.


FUCK!!!!!!!!!

[mike_c]

65. bookmarked for future reference, since SOMEONE will have...

...some crow to eat, one way or the other!

[Dems Will Win]

70. Nader's going for seconds

This Dems wanting a DRAFT is another BIG LIE, to go along with his BIG 2000 LIE that there is no difference between Dems and Repubs, which was a major 12-course CROW DINNER from 2001 to the present.

[HFishbine]

74. Where

has Nader said dems want a draft?

[IndianaGreen]

69. Kerry doesn't know shit about the military of today!

We don't have that many military "paper pushers," and I don't know why Kerry is babbling something that would have been true back in 1980s, but it is no longer true today (and hasn't been true since Cheney was Secretary of Defense).

Why do you think we have so many contractors today doing the work that the military used to do?

Kerry is being disingenuous about how he is going to get 40,000 more combat troops out of today's force structure. This bullshit reminds me of the old GOP election slogan of realizing savings by getting rid of "waste, fraud, abuse."

The only way Kerry can add 40,000 troops to the force structure is either through increased recruitment levels (highly unlikely to reach when there is an unpopular war), or through conscription.

Of course, we could wave the age limit for military service in which case older people like those that support "staying the course in Iraq" could join the occupation force in Iraq or some other country.

Kerry could also do away with the stupid "don't ask, don't tell," but he still won't get that many new GLBTs to join the military while it is waging a criminal war overseas.

BTW, I support Dennis Kucinich, not Nader.

Bottom line: If you don't want to see people being drafted, then you must vote against Bush, but you must also question the sincerity of John Kerry.

You could also vote for the real deal: Dennis Kucinich

Dennis will bring the troops home, and he will repeal PATRIOT Act.

[mike_c]

71. I've predicted a "limited draft" during Kerry's first 100 days...

...in office, and I still believe that's likely. And for those who've been pounding sand in this thread over whose veracity has greater veritas, please note that this is NOT a lie, it's my opinion. Sounds to me like Nader was expressing his opinion as well....

[kiahzero]

72. Of course he's lying

He lied about Al Gore wanting to invade Iraq on Meet the Press when he announced.

[IndianaGreen]

77. The thread title is a FALSEHOOD - Kerry is never mentioned!

Kerry is not mentioned at all. Here is the headline:

Nader Claims A Draft Is Imminent
United Press International
April 17, 2004,

WASHINGTON - Ralph Nader's independent presidential campaign sent an Internet "Message to America's Students" warning that a draft may take place if the war goes on.

"The Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, as the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place," Nader said. "Young Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run over their generation."

Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said the warning is based on the U.S. Selective Service System's recent call for draft board volunteers, an extended U.S. military and calls by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and Congress to expand the military, the Boston Herald reported Friday.

However, the government firmly denies a draft is anywhere in the near future. "We're not going to re-implement a draft. There's no need for it at all," said Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Jane Campbell.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_draft_041704,00.html

[Dems Will Win]

78. Wrong again--from the media coverage and Nader spokesman Zeese:

Nader let his surrogates do the real dirty work in this paragraph:

"Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said the warning is based on the U.S. Selective Service System's recent call for draft board volunteers, an extended U.S. military and calls by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and Congress to expand the military, the Boston Herald reported Friday."

This is lying by conflation (saying 2 things together so they seem as one) and gross omission of facts. Kerry's plan to add 40,000 additional active-duty troops actually helps the nation avoid a draft, as does his call for NATO in Iraq and his plan to increase pay and benes to keep up the enlistment and re-up rates.

Mr. Zeese's statement is an attempt to tie Kerry and Bush together and say there in no difference, as Nader did between Gore and Bush. Yet the opposite is true. Kerry is actively planning to restructure, etc. to have NO DRAFT, while Bush is RIGHT NOW spending $28 million for a full readiness exercise of the entire SSS, even down to having guys in their underwear be examined in nationwide "exercises" during this summer, and sample lottery balls be drawn out of the jar and assigned to YOUR BIRTHDAY!

Most ominously, the SSS is making ready the Alternative Service, which has lain dormant for decades, and is actually identifying the employers needed for those who win non-military CO status. The first induction of COs right now looks like July 6, 2005, once the GOP Congress approves on April 1, 2005.

BUSH '04 = DRAFT '05
KERRY 'O4 = PNAC OUT THE DOOR!

[checks-n-balances]

89. Nader supporters really have no leg to stand on when they complain

about the logic of those who will be doing the only thing that makes any sense in November - i.e., casting their votes for Democratic candidates.

[NNN0LHI]

90. They won't be complaining. Most of them are Rethugs anyway

The rest have have all pretty much lost touch with reality so they won't complain either.

Don

[nonkultur]

87. It is not a draft.

If it is called national service.