When will moderate Republicans revolt against the neocons?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Rex Little
I'm hoping this is the year the small-government Republicans will throw up their hands and vote Libertarian or Constitutionalist. Sure, that might throw the election to Kerry the way Nader did for Bush last time, but so what? Even if you think Kerry is pond scum, what's he going to do that's worse than Bush? Run record deficits? Give illegal aliens a free pass? Throw money at the National Endowment for the Arts?

If you find Kerry and Bush to both be unpalatable, you might as well cast a vote which makes a statement. If 20-25% of the votes went to a small-government candidate, it would send a powerful message.

I'm voting 3rd party candidate. Mostly out of protest.

I was going to vote Bush- as I had in my signiture. But there has just been too many problems with his administration. The abuse scandal shows this. Something is just not right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But who? Russo? All my lib friends are liking Russo, I saw him on Fox News and he was crazy as a loon. Even for a libertarian he was pretty out there. I sure hope he doesn't get the nomination. Nolan will be better.

Browne isn't running again?! But unfortunetly it sounds like his replacement won't be much better . I prefer a more moderate libertarian, like the Cato types you referenced.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Right.

I'm glad that I fall into the category of a moderate republican.

Not from everything we've seen on these boards.

[alva]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Of course. However the fact remains that the US has too few boots to put on any ground to be able to maintain commitments and take on what must qualify as a 4th world country at the same time as a moderately sized 3rd.

If you don't have the manpower to do it right, maybe regime changes should be passed over. I was and am in favour of getting rid of Saddam, but I don't fancy him being replaced by something worse 5 years from now on account of the US administration radiacally underestimating manpower requirements for subduing a hostile nation.

They are already on a solution that is called "draft"

Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.

The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.

Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!

Please also contact your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and contact newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.

[the_ceebs]

quote:
Yeah, **** the old!


Why not? They're ****ing me and are doing their best to ensure the ****ing will last the rest of my tax-paying life...

Perhaps the elderly feel that they have a contract with the state. In the past they have paid taxes with the promise that in return they would be supported in old age. If they have a contract then individual politicians shouldn't be able to pander to voters by cutting social security.

[MRT144]

you know that if the draft were to come back there would be riots, and revolt across the nation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All the while, the old whine and moan about having to pay property taxes to send kids to school and get a decent education when their education was paid in the same way. So they aren't just helpless old people, they are doing their best to screw over everyone else as well.

[Arrian]

Those old people show up to vote, folks, and they get their way more often than not.

Which, however you may feel about those property taxes or social security, is kinda the way it's supposed to work. You know, in a democracy you VOTE.

Sorry, irritation at my age group is boiling over today.

-Arrian

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What did any of that have to do with neoconservatives?

They got us in illegality into the Iraq quirrame and mess.
I than a modest republic who doesnot like military advesztion oversea. We would be better off mine our own bussien and take care of our own people. Cancel the Bush tax cut so we can increase government revencue to help the poor people in our nation. This idear that no taxes to run than government is supid, how are you going to pay fireman and policeman salary.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by MRT144
you know that if the draft were to come back there would be riots, and revolt across the nation.

If the draft is restarted, that would mean Bush was elected. And if Bush was elected, that means that people support things like his war in Iraq. If that's the case, I doubt that "riots and revolution" will occur.

Then again...maybe a resurgance of the '60s? Free love and drugs, man!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by the_ceebs
Perhaps the elderly feel that they have a contract with the state. In the past they have paid taxes with the promise that in return they would be supported in old age. If they have a contract then individual politicians shouldn't be able to pander to voters by cutting social security.

1) the State can't be sued without its consent, and the only legal recourse for a "breach of contract" would be suit, so the government is completely within its rights and power to cut those programs

2) any "contract" made is no more legally binding than a compaign promise - made by politician of whom many are not even still in office

3) your logic would mean that a decision of this nature could NEVER be undone, whether or not it was the correct decision

Now, obviously some people will get hurt, but if it is ever to be taken down SOMEONE will have to be hurt down the line.

[Kuciwalker]

The draft would be political suicide for anyone, even a second-term president. Plus, Congress would NEVER allow it - the entire Republican party would revolt, because they'd know that reinstating the draft would give the Democrats the Presidency and control of Congress for a long time.

[alva]

Then again...maybe a resurgance of the '60s? Free love and drugs, man!

...Next stop is Vietna'am Ira'an...

EDIT : quote added

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

Then why don't you kick them out? We would all be better off if you did.

They would lose like 45% to 50% of they party members it they did that.

[alva]

Originally posted by Kucinich
The draft would be political suicide for anyone, even a second-term president. Plus, Congress would NEVER allow it - the entire Republican party would revolt, because they'd know that reinstating the draft would give the Democrats the Presidency and control of Congress for a long time.

Sure you wanne risk it???? They might want you in a couple of years .. I wonder wether you will be very or to do your 'duty' .

Well, maybe we find out soon enough, man I'm so gonna point and point again at so many here...