quote:

ORIGINAL: blue1914

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bas

What do you think of this? Outlandish statement from a paranoid right-winger, or real possibility?

What about a private domestic army answering only to Obama? What exactly would this force do to fill it's time? Is this a bad idea? If so, how do citizens stop it from happening?



http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRxZox4GFoIweckPDP1oRhKBlHOwD94CCDU00

With the context of the statements from Mr. Obama, it appears to be a pretty sad commentary on the congressman from Georgia if he is so unable to understand the difference between a peaceful civilian group designed to implement PEACEFUL initiatives and build goodwill towards America around the world and an armed force designed to act as a secret service.

Looking at U.S. foreign policy, I can see how the congressman made the mistake since in so many ways, it has been a "shoot first, ask questions later" type of policy. So far, if one is talking about "national security" the only thing they CAN be talking about is a show of armed force, huh? What it appears Mr. Obama was trying to say was that there is more than one way to skin a cat-what Mr. Clinton did for volunteerism with the Ameiricorp Program (which is FAR from an armed force) it appears Mr. Obama is proposing to do for the world - spread HELP and HEALING and in that way, secure our nation through goodwill. What is dismaying is that it is such a foreign concept that such silly comparisons can be made and taken seriously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: EStan

Schutzstaffel.

Gesundheit. Whenever the Hitler argument shows up in a discussion, it signals a hyperbolic shift.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blue1914

quote:

ORIGINAL: LabGuy

Obama's original comment

Direct comparison to the military, saying this force needs to be just as strong and just as powerful. The logical inference is that he is talking about an armed force.

-Robb

Of course that is a clip of the most provocative sounding statement from Mr. Obama, cut for effect to try to make a point the poster intended.

quote:

That aside, I'm wondering what level of "logic" you feel is being applied by inferring that Mr. Obama is advocating in a public campaign speech an illegal (as in against the constitution) armed military force which reports only to him?

quote:

The premise is so silly it's laughable.

quote:

If Mr. McCain's campaign had found some way to logically spin this statement into that big of a whopper, don't you think they would have attempted to do so? I mean they had an 8 year old Barack Obama out palling around with terrorists, wouldn't they have seized upon an actual ILLEGAL statement made by Mr. Obama if they were able to do so with any level of integrity? At least on the ridiculous Ayers charges, they could place Mr. Obama at the scene of Mr. Ayers' home. In this case, this silly mis-quote would not only not stand on it's own two feet, Mr. McCain would have been laughed out if he had tried to make it on this statement-that's why he didn't in the campaign (though he did desperately need some method of overcoming Mr. Obama's popularity-if this were out there available to him, don't doubt for a second that he would have spun it to his advantage).

quote:

I'm quite certain that Mr. Obama will do many things regarding policy that you do not agree with over the next years we have him as the President of the United States. Wait until you have some of those to make fun of and have an actual point. Making silly "points" like this really cheapen the speaker making them as opposed to the target of their "arguments".

quote:

That doesn't mean it's likely. Obama can't create this type security force by executive order because massive funding is required.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blue1914

quote:

ORIGINAL: LabGuy

Obama's original comment

Direct comparison to the military, saying this force needs to be just as strong and just as powerful. The logical inference is that he is talking about an armed force.

-Robb

Of course that is a clip of the most provocative sounding statement from Mr. Obama, cut for effect to try to make a point the poster intended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

It wasn't too long ago that the Dems were calling for the Minuteman Project to be disbanded. What is the difference between them and the bunch Obama wants to assemble? Probably that the Minutemen are law abiding citizens trying to accomplish a much needed goal, whereas the Obamarmy................. who knows?!?

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

It wasn't too long ago that the Dems were calling for the Minuteman Project to be disbanded. What is the difference between them and the bunch Obama wants to assemble? Probably that the Minutemen are law abiding citizens trying to accomplish a much needed goal, whereas the Obamarmy................. who knows?!?

quote:

ORIGINAL: EStan

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

It wasn't too long ago that the Dems were calling for the Minuteman Project to be disbanded. What is the difference between them and the bunch Obama wants to assemble? Probably that the Minutemen are law abiding citizens trying to accomplish a much needed goal, whereas the Obamarmy................. who knows?!?

the Minutemen are trying to keep illegal immigrants Democratic voters from crossing the border.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

But, if you stop be being silly for a while, then maybe this might help diffuse some of the fear that his incautious words created. It's a full interview where he gives us a glimpse of what he means by Civilian National Security Force.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rnershigh

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

The idea of a 'Civilian Security Force' that could, in effect, bypass laws against our current military being use on civilians doesn't trouble you?

Maybe you don't remember Little Rock, Arkansas or Selma, Alabama. But, I do. And, maybe you don't remember the animosity that the FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, had toward Martin Luther King. But, I do. If Hoover were presiding over a 'Civilian Security Force' at the time of King's March on Washington, could it have happened? The fact that the FBI was NOT a paramilitary organization was a good thing, wasn't it?

The shallowness of the thinking on these forums is amazing. Laugh now. But, if ANY president is able to build a paramilitary organization under the Executive branch targeted at 'internal security' then Mao's Red Guards will look like boy scouts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: -J-

I'll go with "Outlandish statement from a paranoid right-winger" for $2000 Alex.

Right you are, J! Now it's time for the Daily Double (applause).

That was before my time, but you know TMeeks like someone else stated, this could be a real possibility. And you know there are enough blind supporters of Obamas that would join such an organization if he implemented it. I'm thinking of the Missouri truth squad of Obama supporters that were prosecutors and law enforcement types. Yeah, so it's a definite possibility unfortunately. We just need to keep a close watch on him during his Presidency.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LabGuy

I think I've mentioned it before on the Forum, but my guess is the "foot soldiers" would be recruited from the ranks of the poorest and most disaffected members of our society. A good salary, not to mention the power that comes with being part of that force, would all but guarantee personal loyalty to the President, not the country.

Plus there's the Second Amendment angle. Once the "Civilian National Security Force" is in place, Obama can argue it fulfills the role of a "well-regulated militia" under the Amendment, and eliminate private gun ownership. (He only needs to flip one Supreme Court vote to get away with it.)

-Robb

quote:

ORIGINAL: LabGuy

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

But, if you stop be being silly for a while, then maybe this might help diffuse some of the fear that his incautious words created. It's a full interview where he gives us a glimpse of what he means by Civilian National Security Force.

Thank you for the link. If that is indeed what he means, then there really is no issue here.

-Robb

quote:

ORIGINAL: writerchick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LabGuy

I think I've mentioned it before on the Forum, but my guess is the "foot soldiers" would be recruited from the ranks of the poorest and most disaffected members of our society. A good salary, not to mention the power that comes with being part of that force, would all but guarantee personal loyalty to the President, not the country.

Plus there's the Second Amendment angle. Once the "Civilian National Security Force" is in place, Obama can argue it fulfills the role of a "well-regulated militia" under the Amendment, and eliminate private gun ownership. (He only needs to flip one Supreme Court vote to get away with it.)

-Robb

And yet you favor the tax system as it is to prevent these people from rising out of the ranks of the poorest so they're chomping at the bit to join this kind of force. Funny stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: StephK

quote:

ORIGINAL: writerchick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LabGuy

I think I've mentioned it before on the Forum, but my guess is the "foot soldiers" would be recruited from the ranks of the poorest and most disaffected members of our society. A good salary, not to mention the power that comes with being part of that force, would all but guarantee personal loyalty to the President, not the country.

Plus there's the Second Amendment angle. Once the "Civilian National Security Force" is in place, Obama can argue it fulfills the role of a "well-regulated militia" under the Amendment, and eliminate private gun ownership. (He only needs to flip one Supreme Court vote to get away with it.)

-Robb

And yet you favor the tax system as it is to prevent these people from rising out of the ranks of the poorest so they're chomping at the bit to join this kind of force. Funny stuff.

That isn't the problem. The problem is the breakdown of the family in the AA community. It is the welfare mentality that has kept the largest percentage enslaved to the slums.

quote:

ORIGINAL: writerchick


And what exactly would that accomplish? It's not like you'd be able to actually DO anything about it if he did decide to set up an American Gestapo. Which, by the way, he's not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

That is part of the problem. Someone once rightly said that if we cannot learn from the past we will be sure to repeat it. And, those who chafe under our present limited government, under the Constitution, repeatedly also chafe at remembering the past as a warning for the future.

You dismiss it as if somehow the events in Russia, when the Communists took over, Germany when the NAZIs took over, Italy when the FASCISTs took over, China when the MAOISTS took over, Vietnam when the Communists took over, Cambodia when the Communists took over and North Korea when the Communists took over never took place and have nothing to say for the future.

And, you know why you chafe at this?

It's very simple. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE REPRESSIVE STATES WAS BASED ON SOCIALISM. The common thread in ALL of them was SOCIALISM. And, somehow you think YOUR socialism is going to be different. IT WILL NOT BE DIFFERENT. IT WILL BE JUST AS REPRESSIVE AS ALL THE REST.

But, you don't want to believe that. So, you must ridicule looking to the past as a predictor of the future. So, we'll end up repeating it since you now have the critical mass you need to destroy the Constitution.

I'm old enough not to be here when this all works out differently than your dreams. But, my grandchildren and, perhaps, your grandchildren WILL suffer for the stupidity of this generation and they will not call our generation anything like the "Greatest Generation". It will be more like the children in East Germany a few years ago looked back on THEIR grandparents of the Third Reich. Not all that endearingly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: writerchick

quote:

ORIGINAL: rnershigh

quote:

ORIGINAL: TMeeks

The idea of a 'Civilian Security Force' that could, in effect, bypass laws against our current military being use on civilians doesn't trouble you?

Maybe you don't remember Little Rock, Arkansas or Selma, Alabama. But, I do. And, maybe you don't remember the animosity that the FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, had toward Martin Luther King. But, I do. If Hoover were presiding over a 'Civilian Security Force' at the time of King's March on Washington, could it have happened? The fact that the FBI was NOT a paramilitary organization was a good thing, wasn't it?

The shallowness of the thinking on these forums is amazing. Laugh now. But, if ANY president is able to build a paramilitary organization under the Executive branch targeted at 'internal security' then Mao's Red Guards will look like boy scouts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: -J-

I'll go with "Outlandish statement from a paranoid right-winger" for $2000 Alex.

Right you are, J! Now it's time for the Daily Double (applause).

That was before my time, but you know TMeeks like someone else stated, this could be a real possibility. And you know there are enough blind supporters of Obamas that would join such an organization if he implemented it. I'm thinking of the Missouri truth squad of Obama supporters that were prosecutors and law enforcement types. Yeah, so it's a definite possibility unfortunately. We just need to keep a close watch on him during his Presidency.

And what exactly would that accomplish? It's not like you'd be able to actually DO anything about it if he did decide to set up an American Gestapo. Which, by the way, he's not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: writerchick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LabGuy

I think I've mentioned it before on the Forum, but my guess is the "foot soldiers" would be recruited from the ranks of the poorest and most disaffected members of our society. A good salary, not to mention the power that comes with being part of that force, would all but guarantee personal loyalty to the President, not the country.

Plus there's the Second Amendment angle. Once the "Civilian National Security Force" is in place, Obama can argue it fulfills the role of a "well-regulated militia" under the Amendment, and eliminate private gun ownership. (He only needs to flip one Supreme Court vote to get away with it.)

-Robb

And yet you favor the tax system as it is to prevent these people from rising out of the ranks of the poorest so they're chomping at the bit to join this kind of force. Funny stuff.

quote:


And yet you favor the tax system as it is to prevent these people from rising out of the ranks of the poorest so they're chomping at the bit to join this kind of force. Funny stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EStan

quote:

ORIGINAL: StephK

quote:

ORIGINAL: writerchick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LabGuy

I think I've mentioned it before on the Forum, but my guess is the "foot soldiers" would be recruited from the ranks of the poorest and most disaffected members of our society. A good salary, not to mention the power that comes with being part of that force, would all but guarantee personal loyalty to the President, not the country.

Plus there's the Second Amendment angle. Once the "Civilian National Security Force" is in place, Obama can argue it fulfills the role of a "well-regulated militia" under the Amendment, and eliminate private gun ownership. (He only needs to flip one Supreme Court vote to get away with it.)

-Robb

And yet you favor the tax system as it is to prevent these people from rising out of the ranks of the poorest so they're chomping at the bit to join this kind of force. Funny stuff.

That isn't the problem. The problem is the breakdown of the family in the AA community. It is the welfare mentality that has kept the largest percentage enslaved to the slums.

100% right, Steph.

quote:

What do you think of this? Outlandish statement from a paranoid right-winger, or real possibility?

quote:

ORIGINAL: writerchick

quote:

ORIGINAL: EStan

quote:

ORIGINAL: StephK

quote:

ORIGINAL: writerchick

quote:

ORIGINAL: LabGuy

I think I've mentioned it before on the Forum, but my guess is the "foot soldiers" would be recruited from the ranks of the poorest and most disaffected members of our society. A good salary, not to mention the power that comes with being part of that force, would all but guarantee personal loyalty to the President, not the country.

Plus there's the Second Amendment angle. Once the "Civilian National Security Force" is in place, Obama can argue it fulfills the role of a "well-regulated militia" under the Amendment, and eliminate private gun ownership. (He only needs to flip one Supreme Court vote to get away with it.)

-Robb

And yet you favor the tax system as it is to prevent these people from rising out of the ranks of the poorest so they're chomping at the bit to join this kind of force. Funny stuff.

That isn't the problem. The problem is the breakdown of the family in the AA community. It is the welfare mentality that has kept the largest percentage enslaved to the slums.

100% right, Steph.

Hmmm. So the two of you believe that only African Americans receive welfare and live in slums. And furthermore, only African Americans come from broken families. Got it.