Republican who passed a draft for woman does not want his daughters to serve

[Wolfie]

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) did something a little unorthodox for lawmakers Wednesday. During a House Armed Services Committee hearing, he offered an amendment he didn't actually want to support.

The amendment required women register for the draft.

"I regretfully introduce this amendment," Hunter said, noting later he might not vote for it. "My daughters talk about serving. My son talks about serving, but I don't want to put my daughters in a place where they have to get drafted."

Another GOP fraud.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/duncan-hunter-introduces-gotcha-amendment-and-it-passes

Plus this helps Hillary and the Ds big time, first the GOP wants to end abortion and now they want women to get drafted.

[Mr. AR50]

Did you read the article? With all of the talk of equality in the armed forces, including combat, he was attempting to force the issue by introducing legislation making the draft mandatory for women, in hopes of getting his colleagues to reconsider their position on women in combat. Unfortunately for him, it backfired, and quite a few of them actually did support the measure.
Misguided yes, but hardly fraud.
Nice try though. It was almost like watching MSNBC, or CNN.

[Wolfie]

Wow, voting to send your daughter into combat is OK, but not when its his daughter.

Votes speak for themselves, this is why the GOP has no healthcare or economic plan, they are full of it. They do not want to be on the record.

[Mr. AR50]

The man voted AGAINST women in combat(look it up), and he stated that he has daughters, daughters that he would never
want to see combat, so he took a hard line and tried to scare his colleagues into abandoning the idea of women on the front line, by introducing legislation that he thought would force them to 'put up' or 'shut up'. Unfortunately, his colleagues called his bluff, and the measure passed. Nowhere did the article say or suggest anything about him drafting women into battle,
as long as his daughters were exempt.
Spin it however you like, but that's what I read.

BTW, I have three beautiful daughters, girls that are my better in every sense of the word, whom I love with all of my heart.

[Wolfie]

He put it up for a vote.

Putting something up for a vote and not supporting it makes you a fraud.

[sqlbullet]

I don't think I can agree with that.

Saying you support something and then not supporting it would make you a fraud.  This guy proposed legislation that he never said he would support.  He was using the bill as a tool to cause people to think and try to gain support for a related position.

[colt1911fan]

I don't support this bill, but it is the logical conclusion to completely flat equality, which is the popular agenda.

Individual private bathrooms are logical conclusions to the popularized and now legally supported destruction of birth-defined sexuality.

Incorporated unions (of any number or mix of sex) OR zero state recognized unions are the only two possible logical conclusions to the popularized destruction of birth-defined sexuality and the traditional institution of marriage.

I don't support the changes, but I value consistency. Given what is now realized as the popular, at least be consistent. America can have what it wanted.

They aren't getting my guns or religion or speech, though.