Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/28/2004 7:37:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 7:38:40 PM EST by raven]
216.180.225.12/videos/draft.wmv

They just dont care about the truth anymore. It's all about helping the Democrats, scaring the public away from Bush

ratherbiased.com/news.html



Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:17:54 PM EST
It seems to me that you may have misinterpreted the cartoon. I think it's saying that the democrats are doing something that they are accusing the repubs of doing. Like a Donkey in Elephants clothing. It's really the democrats trying to start the draft, but they are accusing the Republicans of it. As in the Elephant mask having fallen off the donkey. Make sence?
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:19:41 PM EST
I know someone who has fallen for that, they think Bush is pushing to bring back the draft and "its on TV Its gotta be true"
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:19:59 PM EST
Watch the vid.


i think he interpreted the cartoon perfectly. You misunderstood him
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:23:29 PM EST
unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!



Sgtar1­5
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:28:55 PM EST



That was sickening.

Who the FUCK cares what "Beverly Cocco" thinks??? Why the FUCK do they spend so much time turning this supposed "news report" into an episode from the fucking Oprah show??

Both candidates say there's no draft coming - but instead of focusing on the ISSUE and the POSITIONS of the candidates - they focus on stirring up the FEAR.


Journalism is dead... and has been for a long time.

Long live the Internet and talk-radio!
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:30:00 PM EST
That concerned mother in the vid, Beverly Cocco is part of a group called People Against the Draft. Not just another typical Republican mother as the piece leads you to believe

www.nodraft.info/
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:30:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 9:32:25 PM EST by raven]

Originally Posted By Special-K:
It seems to me that you may have misinterpreted the cartoon. I think it's saying that the democrats are doing something that they are accusing the repubs of doing. Like a Donkey in Elephants clothing. It's really the democrats trying to start the draft, but they are accusing the Republicans of it. As in the Elephant mask having fallen off the donkey. Make sence?



Uh...yeah. My point is, this is a cheap Democrat tactic, so why is CBS helping them?
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:43:43 PM EST
Thinking about it, I was once against the draft. I've thought many years on it now, and I have come to one conclusion. I live in the greatest country in the world, and if my country needed me to defend freedom I would do it in heartbeat.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:49:31 PM EST
She named one of her sons Carmen...

She doesn't care about anything but her sons. Screw everyone else's sons. They can fight in her sons' place.

She's stupid.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 9:53:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 9:54:06 PM EST by Winston_Wolf]
... Aside from all else, what strikes me odd was the complete lack of testicles in that household
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 5:05:38 AM EST
I think it's Charles Rangle (D-NY) who actually introduced the bill to reinstate the draft.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 5:32:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... Aside from all else, what strikes me odd was the complete lack of testicles in that household

I think Beverly keeps her sons' testicles in a jar on the mantle.

Link Posted: 9/29/2004 5:35:34 AM EST
Given the ratings free fall at CBS, this report was seen by what, 12 people?
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 5:52:24 AM EST
IIRC there are 5 pieces of legislation in the house/senate that pertain to the draft and DEMOCRATS introduced all of them!
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 5:55:40 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 6:00:04 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 6:07:09 AM EST
Beverly needs to shut the fuck up and get run over by a goddamn bus in her precious crosswalk. She wants to "keep her sons safe", fuck her and her nancy-boy little bitch sons too. Those two look like they could use some military discipline and where the hell is DADDY in all this? Is Beverly going to keep the big bad terrorists away from her sons with her bright orange vest and cute little cap?

These people are so insulated from reality it is not even close to funny. She is PETRIFIED that her sons might have to go protect this country, but how selfish is she? Does she not think that EVERY mother who has a son or daughter in the military fears for their safety? Does she realize that MILLIONS of parents also LOVE their offspring and want to protect them? Does she realize that she is not "special" and in the grand scheme of life, neither are her sons?

Duty, Honor, Pride.

Three words she could repeat.

Three words she could probably define.

Three words she does not understand.
Link Posted: 9/29/2004 7:23:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2004 7:25:04 AM EST by ArmdLbrl]
September 29, 2004
CBS Falls for Democrats Draft Hoax E-Mails
CLARIFICATION: The headline is not meant to imply that there is any evidence that the Democrats were responsible for the hoax. Democrats are only responsible for the attempt to introduce a Draft.

From CBS :


In this report, CBS News Correspondent Richard Schlesinger looks at what President Bush and Sen. John Kerry say about the possibilities of reinstituting the military draft.
Beverly Cocco has spent most of her life protecting children in Philadelphia.
She spends most of her time worrying about other people’s kids. But as Election Day approaches, it’s her own two grown sons who Beverly is most worried about.

“I go to bed every night and I pray and I actually get sick to my stomach,” she says. “I’m very worried; I’m scared. I’m absolutely scared; I’m petrified.”

Beverly is petrified about a military draft : and she’s not alone. There’s an undercurrent of anxiety; mass e-mails are circulating among parents worried their kids could be called up.

“I think there’s a good possibility,” Beverly says.

But neither President Bush, nor Sen. John Kerry has said he will re-institute the draft. In fact they both say they won’t.

Kerry says, “I will give us a foreign policy that absolutely makes it unnecessary to have a draft for this country.”

Kerry says he’ll try to get allies of the U.S. to send troops that could relieve American soldiers.

The Bush campaign says expecting great numbers of foreign troops to help out is pure fantasy. The president wants to train more Iraqi troops to take over for the Americans. And, he says, despite the war on terror, there will be no draft.

“The war on terror will continue,” says the president. “It’s going to take a while and no, we don’t need a draft.”

But Beverly’s not buying it. She’s a Republican, but also a single-issue voter.

Would she vote for a Democrat? “Absolutely,” she says. “I would vote for Howdy Doody if I thought it would keep my boys home and safe.”

In fact, there are at least three votes in this house riding on the draft: Beverly’s and her sons’ Carmen and Nick.

Are her sons worried about being drafted? “Yeah,” says Nick. “It’s the talk; the talk’s there. Though people aren’t actually coming out and saying it, it’s there.”

What worries the Coccos is the continuing need for more troops in dangerous places. And the machinery for a draft is already in place: all men have to register when they turn 18.

The head of the Selective Service believes he could start drafting people quickly.

“I think we could do it in less than six months if we got the call,” says Selective Service Director Jack Martin.

This time, Martin says there would be no long deferments for college students and a lot more people could be eligible for the draft than before: men and women ages 18 to 26 could be called up.

There hasn’t been a draft since 1973, but that’s not much comfort to Beverly Cocco.

So she is keeping a sharp eye on the political traffic. She’s a Bush supporter today, but if she doesn’t like what she hears between now and November, she could easily cross over.




The e-mails (whose text is not available on the CBS site) referred to read as follows:

From: [omitted]@usdoj.gov
Subject: Military Draft expected to start July 15, 2005
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004
Draft expected to start July 15, 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. Details and links follow.

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 draft $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.www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, 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.
www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default.asp

S. 89—Universal National Service Act of 2003

Action Requested:
None at this time. HSLDA’s National Center is tracking this legislation.

Background:
Official purpose: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons 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.

The language of this bill mandates a national service obligation for every U.S. citizen and permanent resident, aged 18-26. It authorizes the President to establish both the number of people to be selected for military service, and the means of selection. Additionally, the measure requires those not selected specifically for military service to perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity for at least two years.

H.R.163
Title: To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons 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.

——————————-


From RatherBiased.com :

CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger used debunked internet hoax emails
[…]
Schlesinger did not disclose that Cocco is a chapter president of an advocacy group called People Against the Draft (PAD) which, in addition to opposing any federal conscriptions, seeks to establish a “peaceful, rational foreign policy” by bringing all U.S. troops out of Iraq.
[…]
Also left out of the CBS story was the fact that while there are two bills in Congress that are seeking to reestablish the draft, both of them ([urlhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.00089:]S-89 and thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00163:]HR-163) are sponsored exclusively by Democrats and have been pronounced DOA by the Republican leadership.
UPDATE: It has been suggested that CBS may not have fallen for any ‘hoax’, but may have deliberately intended to mislead viewers by omitting extremely relevant facts. Given recent events, the fact that even the most simple and easy search on the Internet would have revealed the e-mails to be bogus should not be viewed as evidence that CBS intended to mislead, merely that they don’t bother checking any of their evidence.



Posted by Alan Brain at September 29, 2004 08:22 AM | TrackBack

Top Top