Gfted1 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 they are not volunteer... Explain please. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
taks Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 they get paid, is what i mean. at least, some of them do. it is like being a reserve in the military. i actually applied to be a pilot (and had gotten a recommendation from the base commander) in the air national guard when i graduated in 1990. it would have been a full-time job for a year or so then one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer after that. taks comrade taks... just because.
Enoch Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 As for the whole "civilian national security force," it's much ado about nothing. He was talking about encouraging and enabling civilian volunteers to improve America's relations abroad, not about some domestic police agency. um, i'm not sure where you get that the civilian national security force has anything to do with america's relations abroad. he's pretty clear here that he's talking about something internal that is just as strong as the military: We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up. sorry, but he's pushing to make us spy on ourselves. we don't need an internal volunteer national security force. i don't understand why anyone would think we do. I'm sorry, but reading that and coming to any conclusion that spying is at all involved reeks of unthinking always-instantly-believe-the-worst-about-people-you've-already-decided-to-dislike paranoia. Keep in mind that this was a speech-- the breaking of the sentences into paragrapsh is rather arbitrary, and was probably done by some low-level campaign flunky responsible for posting the transcripts online. If you move the paragraph breaks by one sentence, that passage makes a lot more logical sense: People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem
taks Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I'm sorry, but reading that and coming to any conclusion that spying is at all involved reeks of unthinking always-instantly-believe-the-worst-about-people-you've-already-decided-to-dislike paranoia. exactly what purpose does a civilian national security force serve, enoch? it's got nothing to do with paranoia. it is a civilian police force. certainly the term "spying" is pushing what its intended job would be, but ultimately their purpose would be to root out internal threats to TheAmericanWay which devolves into spying on each other no matter how you want to look at it. there's a reason police forces are all state and local. Keep in mind that this was a speech-- the breaking of the sentences into paragrapsh is rather arbitrary, and was probably done by some low-level campaign flunky responsible for posting the transcripts online. If you move the paragraph breaks by one sentence, that passage makes a lot more logical sense: the part you bolded is exactly how i was reading this, so i'm not sure what your point is. that i didn't actually include the military line when i quoted it actually made my argument less persuasive than i wanted, but i left it off because everybody (well, not everybody) would have said the paragraph break meant a clear distinction. by doing this, you actually enhance my argument. taks comrade taks... just because.
Hurlshort Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Civilian National Security force doesn't sound anything like a Civilian police force, according to that speech. It sounds like civilians trying to "conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country." You can read all you want into this stuff taks, but it really is coming across as paranoia.
Enoch Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) Civilian = Non-military. National Security = Having to do with the safety of the country, often used to refer specifically to international relations. Force = A group of people or things dedicated to the acheivement of a common goal. When put in context of the preceding 2 sentences, it is fairly evident to those not wearing tinfoil hats that the phrase "civilian national security force" is merely a shorthand term encompassing both government employees working for the State department and private volunteers devoting their time to the Peace Corps or similar international service organization. Edit: Also, this was a singular speech on the campaign trail. If there were a serious proposal to back up your reading of this statement, wouldn't there be some other speeches, policy plans, proposed legislation, etc., to back it up? Or was this speech a slip-up in which Obama accidentially mentioned his sooper-seekrit proposal to crack down on all the just, freedom-loving dissidents once he's in office? Edited January 23, 2009 by Enoch
Enoch Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Also: INAUGURATION SCANDAL!!! The lovely little Ma/Perlman/Montero/McGill quartet performance on the steps of the Capitol? Pre-recorded!
Wrath of Dagon Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Just another example of Obama running his mouth without giving it much thought beforehand. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Trenitay Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Is just everything he says, wrong to you? If it was a civilian police thing you would say "Oh no hes turning us into spies!", if its a mistake you say "Oh, he didn't think that through!" Hey now, my mother is huge and don't you forget it. The drunk can't even get off the couch to make herself a vodka drenched sandwich. Octopus suck.
taks Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Civilian = Non-military.National Security = Having to do with the safety of the country, often used to refer specifically to international relations. Force = A group of people or things dedicated to the acheivement of a common goal. no **** sherlock. and the peace corps has nothing to do with "national security" no matter how you want to spin them. When put in context of the preceding 2 sentences, it is fairly evident to those not wearing tinfoil hats that the phrase "civilian national security force" is merely a shorthand term encompassing both government employees working for the State department and private volunteers devoting their time to the Peace Corps or similar international service organization. no, he's talking about a national police force. Edit: Also, this was a singular speech on the campaign trail. If there were a serious proposal to back up your reading of this statement, wouldn't there be some other speeches, policy plans, proposed legislation, etc., to back it up? Or was this speech a slip-up in which Obama accidentially mentioned his sooper-seekrit proposal to crack down on all the just, freedom-loving dissidents once he's in office? drop the strawman enoch. you're more intelligent than that. i can't help but wonder why you keep using such arguments... i have no idea why he said this nor why he thinks we need something like this. he knows that "security" is an issue with the american populace so maybe he thinks he can ease our fears by implementing some sort of police force. i don' t know. you're the only one talking conspiracy. taks comrade taks... just because.
Guard Dog Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Or was this speech a slip-up in which Obama accidentially mentioned his sooper-seekrit proposal to crack down on all the just, freedom-loving dissidents once he's in office? I KNEW IT!! I KNEW IT!! He's coming after me! Well, Obama had better sent well armed men with no families because I've been making preparations! I kid. In all seriousness, I've stopped reading the blogs and haven't even visited realclearpolitics.com since the election. I just get so depressed at what I'm afraid is coming and know there is nothing to be done about it. If I dwell on it it just makes me sick. The upshot is the Superbowl is next week and Baseball starts in less than a month. And at least I will not be unemployed after next week. I try to focus on those things. Not the inevitable nationalization of private business coupled with the total collapse of the dollar followed by years of double digit inflation. And I think Enoch is optimistic at 2011. The government cannot simply print money to do with as it wishes without consequences. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Humodour Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Universal healthcare again, seems like a big ask; expensive complicated controversial plan in a time of tightening belts. I wouldn't have my hopes very high on that one. Actually, that's one of the easier things for him to do. Clinton laid the ground-work in the 90's and showed him all the ways not to approach it, but besides that, 80% of Americans support the idea and he has the numbers for it in both the Senate and House. What exactly is controversial about it, btw? America is the only Western country without universal healthcare. On another note, nice to see taks above me swearing his head off at people who disagree with him again.
Enoch Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Wow. If you don't understand the rather plain meaning of the statement after all that, I don't know how much clearer I can make it. I'll repost the operative part of quote, since it didn't make it over to this page of the thread (assuming default forum options): And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. I can't help but picture you with your fingers in your ears, saying loudly "LALALALALA IT'S A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE! LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALA!" Otherwise, I can't possibly imagine how you can come to the belief that those few sentences in a single campaign speech are indicative of a serious desire to start some kind of national police force that isn't mentioned in any other supporting speeches, proposals, or policy statements.
Enoch Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Not the inevitable nationalization of private business coupled with the total collapse of the dollar followed by years of double digit inflation. And I think Enoch is optimistic at 2011. The government cannot simply print money to do with as it wishes without consequences. Yeah, I might be optimistic in that regard. Nobody really knows anything right now. My guess is that, while it certainly has consequences (as you indicate), government actions to bailout/nationalize certain businesses are a marginally better option than doing nothing. The end result of the inflation that follows will be 5 years from now, when the dollar is worth $0.25, but everything else is worth $0.10. Doing nothing risks the opposite scenario (i.e., government inaction could lead to the dollar losing its position as the world's premier currency, which would really hurt our ability to sell Treasuries to the rest of the world).
Volourn Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Evils of Guatanamo: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090123/...tanamo_al_qaida DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Meshugger Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Evils of Guatanamo: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090123/...tanamo_al_qaida Well, there were a great number of the most repulsive members of the Einsatz-truppen within Waffen-SS that didn't get any jail at all, despite the nurnberg trials. Granted, they didn't exactly go around killing jews or inciting another holocaust either after being after being pardoned. Point being, i am not suprised that some of those that were captured have returned to their eh, "old ways". However, fault partly lies in the justice system itself; eventough the guy in this case never got convicted, many criminals return to do crime after they have been released. On the bright side, i somehow think that the US will have an easier time to catch him this time. "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy
Volourn Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Yeah, and at least this time, he won't be able to pretend he's innocent in front of the public. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Darth InSidious Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) Also: INAUGURATION SCANDAL!!! The lovely little Ma/Perlman/Montero/McGill quartet performance on the steps of the Capitol? Pre-recorded! Still doesn't explain why it was so ****ing execrable, though. I suppose that's what you get if you plump for John Mediocrity... Edited January 23, 2009 by Darth InSidious This particularly rapid, unintelligible patter isn't generally heard, and if it is, it doesn't matter.
Deadly_Nightshade Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 Also: INAUGURATION SCANDAL!!! The lovely little Ma/Perlman/Montero/McGill quartet performance on the steps of the Capitol? Pre-recorded! Because the interments would have sounded like **** if they had tried to play in that weather - or at least that is what, and I am paraphrasing, Yo-Yo Ma said. Also the part about "People sitting nearby could hear the musicians play, but their instruments were not amplified." is not correct - the inner keys were disabled on the Piano and the stringed instruments were also made silent beforehand. Just another example of Obama running his mouth without giving it much thought beforehand. Huh? "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
Deadly_Nightshade Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 The WorldNetDaily website reported... WordNetDaily?!? Lolz. More like WingNutDaily... "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
Guard Dog Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 The WorldNetDaily website reported... WordNetDaily?!? Lolz. More like WingNutDaily... Actually WND is a pretty good place to get op-eds especially Walter E Williams (one of the brightest economic minds of our time). But I will agree the news reporting there needs to be taken with a really big grain of salt. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now