moondust
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 03:16 PM
Original message |
Does anybody think Charlie Rangel would endorse a war hawk? |
CMT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 03:18 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Rangel is supporting Gen. Clark |
|
who opposed the Iraqi war.
|
Ashcroft Kutcher
(108 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 03:21 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I dont think he would speak out against him |
diplomats
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 03:27 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Clark is not a war hawk |
|
Are you saying that because he's a retired general? The two are not equivalent.
|
moondust
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. Many on DU would portray Clark |
|
as a military monster. I don't believe Charlie Rangel, among others, would actively endorse somebody like that.
|
diplomats
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. Sorry, Buzzz, I misread your post |
|
I thought you were endorsing the idea that Clark's a war hawk. Next time I'll pay more attention! :)
|
Khephra
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 03:31 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Did anyone expect Rangel to push for any sort of a draft? |
|
Edited on Thu Sep-18-03 03:31 PM by khephra
Sometimes people here trust others to do their thinking for them waaaaaaaay too much.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. Charlie Rangel Pushed For A Draft |
|
to highlight the hypocrisy of the chicken hawks* by making their sons and daughters eligible for service...
No, Charlie isn't going to support a war hawk cuz his constituents would be the first ones to be cannon fodder....
*not just the elites but the sons and daughters of all the Americans who were so gung ho about the war...
|
oasis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
9. That was a "bluff" proposal. Rangel was sending the armchair warriors |
|
an anti-war message. People are less likely to promote "elective" wars if they or thier relatives will be drafted to fight in them.
|
moondust
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. One must look at his motivations for doing so. |
|
He wants the bluebloods to share equally in the bloodletting which very well may have the practical effect of discouraging the rush to war in general.
|
Khephra
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
11. And my answer to you all is that if you go back |
|
Edited on Thu Sep-18-03 04:00 PM by khephra
and check out the threads on Rangel's draft then you'll see that a lot of us were shocked and disgusted that someone would bluff on an issue like this. We believed that if the GOP had wanted to call his bluff then they could have used him to push for a guilt-free-draft and the Democratic Party would have been to blame.
Lets get one thing clear--I love Rangel and I like Clark. I like anyone who was against Bush's fake war when it was unpopular and possibly treasonous....but, none of us people know Rangel...we don't really know Clark or Dean or any other politician unless we happen to REALLY know them in real life. We should make up our minds based upon our own ablities and not endorsements of others or expectations that people will act in ways that we believe they'll act.
How many of us "Thought" we knew how the Democrats would act against Bush many, many times only to be disappointed in them almost as a whole group?
Think for yourself. Question authority. That's it.
|
moondust
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. By all means think for yourself. |
|
But don't ignore the opinions of those who may be more knowledgeable than yourself on a given subject and in this case may actually know the subject and his qualities personally.
|
hedda_foil
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
I am always surprised when Duer trust others to do their thinking for them. I'm always surprised by Duers who accept easy answers to hard questions. I'm always surprised by DUers who trust without verifying.
And for those who want to question my support for Dean, please be assured that I went hammer and tongs into researching his background and record BEFORE even considering supporting him, and I continue to do so.
|
Uzybone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
if you dont know why Rangel pushed for the draft then you should educate yourself. Setting up a strawman like that is pretty slimy. So to you Rangel is basically a republican? Damn.
|
oasis
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 03:32 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Bill, Hillary and Michael Moore adore the General. |
caledesi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 04:06 PM
Response to Original message |
12. No, I didn't. Disappointed in Rangel. |
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
Maybe Wes is a good guy?
good guy- any Dem who can beat *
|
charlie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
16. Charlie's endorsement is a plus |
|
as far as I'm concerned. Rangel's a oldtime liberal and gen-yew-wine Republican Ass-Chewer, my kind of Dem.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
17. Charlie Rangel Is As Old School As They Come.... |
Uzybone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Sep-18-03 05:18 PM
Response to Original message |
19. Now they slime Rangel |
|
just becasue he endorsed a candidate whose name wasnt Dean. Your right it is getting ridiculous.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 13th 2024, 02:56 AM
Response to Original message |