[politics]

Oct. 5th, 2004 05:16 pm
wispfox: (Default)
[personal profile] wispfox
Someone needs to convince me that this article is wrong.
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Date: 2004-10-05 09:23 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aussie-nyc.livejournal.com
Snopes has a take on it. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp)

Date: 2004-10-05 09:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wispfox.livejournal.com
Thank you! For some reason, I can never remember _where_ it is that debunks things, only that such things exist.

Date: 2004-10-05 10:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bridgetester.livejournal.com
Beat me to it! ;)

Date: 2004-10-05 10:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] uberjay.livejournal.com
Yeah. Our Fearless Leader also claimed (during the debate) that the military would remain 100% volunteer. So, at least he'd be in deep shit if that ended up not being the case...

sigh.

Date: 2004-10-06 05:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sunspiral.livejournal.com
No, because the fuckwits who'd vote for him will just continue believing him no matter how many times he changes his story.

Date: 2004-10-06 06:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bridgetester.livejournal.com
Well, the House fixed the rumor (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/draft.ap/index.html)

Date: 2004-10-06 09:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bridgetester.livejournal.com
They do good things sometimes.
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Profile

wispfox: (Default)
wispfox
My Website

November 2024

S M T W T F S
     12
3 456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 31st, 2026 08:53 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios