> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4752.IH:

> I'd think an African American would be against slavery.

> --
> Ms. Captain Liberty
> United States of America

> ><dontcowerfromthetr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:1148894242.347168.171640@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> Rep Rangel introduces Draft Bill (for Iran?):

> >> http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=53409

> >This idiot is at it again......repeat after me, NO DRAFT.

> Isn't this the clown who voted against his own bill the last time he
> introduced a draft bill?

> Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2006 09:45:29 -0500, "Mark" <mark...@peoplepc.com>
>> wrote:

>> ><dontcowerfromthetr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1148894242.347168.171640@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Rep Rangel introduces Draft Bill (for Iran?):

>> >> http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=53409

>> >This idiot is at it again......repeat after me, NO DRAFT.

>> Isn't this the clown who voted against his own bill the last time he
>> introduced a draft bill?

> Well, there might be some method to his madness. The reason why the
> American anti-war movement is going nowhere is because our military is
> a all-volunteer one. The reasone why the anti-war movement took off
> during Vietnam is because the draft existed back then. Thus the
> protests...many people protested the war because they didn't want to be
> forced to fight. Rangel may figure that if the draft was reintroduced,
> the peacenik movement would increase. And of course he voted against it
> because it he didn't, he'd be politically endangered.

> > Colin Campbell (remove underscore) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 May 2006 09:45:29 -0500, "Mark" <mark...@peoplepc.com>
> >> wrote:

> >> ><dontcowerfromthetr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:1148894242.347168.171640@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> Rep Rangel introduces Draft Bill (for Iran?):

> >> >> http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=53409

> >> >This idiot is at it again......repeat after me, NO DRAFT.

> >> Isn't this the clown who voted against his own bill the last time he
> >> introduced a draft bill?

> > Well, there might be some method to his madness. The reason why the
> > American anti-war movement is going nowhere is because our military is
> > a all-volunteer one. The reasone why the anti-war movement took off
> > during Vietnam is because the draft existed back then. Thus the
> > protests...many people protested the war because they didn't want to be
> > forced to fight. Rangel may figure that if the draft was reintroduced,
> > the peacenik movement would increase. And of course he voted against it
> > because it he didn't, he'd be politically endangered.

> I'm Canadian, so I'm pretty dumb when it comes to certain USAian things.
> But, I would think there would be any number of reasons a congresscritter
> would introduce a bill, knowing that he would vote against it.  As for the
> draft thingy?  He might have any number of constituents afraid of the
> uncertainty and the rampant rumor mongering, and he just wants to put the
> issue to bed once and for all.

> I think *you* are engaging into too much assuming (and giving away your
> political biases) and bordering on some conspiracy-like woo-woo thinking.

> But, that's just *moi* ... and *nobody* listens to *moi* ....

> - nilita

> "Colin Campbell" <activated_...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
wrote in
> message news:1pfm72ph7hi0te9kpppa6hlh7fag050jt5@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 29 May 2006 09:45:29 -0500, "Mark" <mark...@peoplepc.com>
> > wrote:

> > ><dontcowerfromthetr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >news:1148894242.347168.171640@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >> Rep Rangel introduces Draft Bill (for Iran?):

> > >> http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=53409

> > >This idiot is at it again......repeat after me, NO DRAFT.

> > Isn't this the clown who voted against his own bill the last time
he
> > introduced a draft bill?

> Introducing a bill and voting against it is not that uncommon as a
> parliamentary technique. Remember the Congress doesn't operate by
Roberts'
> Rules of Order, but by Jefferson's.  There are lots of maneuvers
that don't
> make sense in the abstract, but may be perfectly reasonable by the
tactical
> rules of Congress.  Does every military move necessarily intend to
destroy
> the enemy, or might it be part of a cover and deception plan?

> This, for example, may be a way to force hearings on the matter.

>>>> <dontcowerfromthetr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1148894242.347168.171640@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Rep Rangel introduces Draft Bill (for Iran?):

>>>>> http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=53409

>>>> This idiot is at it again......repeat after me, NO DRAFT.
>>> Isn't this the clown who voted against his own bill the last time
> he
>>> introduced a draft bill?

>> Introducing a bill and voting against it is not that uncommon as a
>> parliamentary technique. Remember the Congress doesn't operate by
> Roberts'
>> Rules of Order, but by Jefferson's.  There are lots of maneuvers
> that don't
>> make sense in the abstract, but may be perfectly reasonable by the
> tactical
>> rules of Congress.  Does every military move necessarily intend to
> destroy
>> the enemy, or might it be part of a cover and deception plan?

>> This, for example, may be a way to force hearings on the matter.

> Whether it's Robert, Jefferson or Westminster, if the Bill is
> defeated, then the House has pronounced itself on the matter and the
> same question may not be put again in a session except with unanimous
> consent, which folks like Rangel can then refuse.

>> Whether it's Robert, Jefferson or Westminster, if the Bill is
>> defeated, then the House has pronounced itself on the matter and the
>> same question may not be put again in a session except with unanimous
>> consent, which folks like Rangel can then refuse.

> Not true under Robers, That is what a Motion to reconsider is for.

> "A motion to reconsider is a parliamentary practice that gives the House
> (or Senate) one opportunity to review its action on a motion, amendment,
> or measure.

> Motions to reconsider are routinely laid on the table -- or killed. If a
> motion to reconsider is adopted, it requires a vote be held again on
> whatever the House has voted to reconsider. Only Members who voted on the
> winning side may move to reconsider a vote. Members have been known to
> change their votes at the last minute in order to be eligible to offer the
> motion.

> If the original vote on a question is close, enough members might be
> persuaded to change their position, or absent members could come to the
> floor, vote to reconsider, then reverse the outcome of the original vote.
> http://thomas.loc.gov/home/votes/reconsider.html