Reply #34: Hmmmm...

[LWolf]

I can't help but see connections and patterns here.

<snip>

"Did we do this to give a scholarship to white kids? Of course not," the scholarship reads. "Did we do it to trigger a discussion on what we believe to be the morally wrong practice of basing decisions in our schools and our jobs on racial preferences rather than merit? Absolutely."

and some of the following <snips> from DU itself:

"It's an anti-war tactic. Why is that so hard for people to understand? It puts the pro-war idiots on the spot and makes people think."

"He does not want a draft - he wants a *debate* - and he is getting it."

"Rangel doesn't want a military draft. He wants to end the insanity of war."

From Rangel

<snip>

"I don't expect my bill to pass; my purpose in introducing this legislation is for it to serve as a constant reminder that we have lost 2,200 of the best, brightest and bravest Americans, have had thousands more maimed, and countless Iraqi citizens killed. ....

The Republican Leadership responded to my first bill by procedurally preventing debate on the issues it raised; let us see how they try to avoid facing the question of shared sacrifice this time.

Most of those snips come from here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2764253

So...this Republican group doesn't REALLY want to offer racist scholarships. They are just doing EXACTLY THAT to make the opposite point.

Rangel and his supporters don't REALLY want to force all Americans, when they are of age, into military service. He's just introducing A LAW REQUIRING JUST THAT into the real U.S. Congress to make the opposite point.

Why is this considered a valid political tactic by ANY side?

:wtf: