The Forgotten Right

[HuskerJen]

What's this about?

 

It's a reply to Oz Huskers post that listed those 12 points as facts that the US (in the last few decades) is transforming into a government similar to Nazi Germany.

 

The statements in parentheses are my responses.

 

Just curious because I haven't been on this board very long: Were you as equally offended every time some liberal referred to Bush II as a nazi?

 

The simple fact of the matter is that Obama is the face of oppression and will, should he get his way, lead America into a facist police state ruled by a hidden oligarchy who hides behind the scenes dictating policy. Most of our "elected" leaders are nothing more than brainless, spineless, sycophantic puppets who dance, perform and do the bidding of the ruling financial elite.

 

It's no coincidence that we only have "two" political parties from which to choose. It's also no coincidence that the members of these "two" parties are so close to each other it's almost impossible to see where one ends and the other begins.

[carlfense]

What's this about?

 

It's a reply to Oz Huskers post that listed those 12 points as facts that the US (in the last few decades) is transforming into a government similar to Nazi Germany.

 

The statements in parentheses are my responses.

 

Just curious because I haven't been on this board very long: Were you as equally offended every time some liberal referred to Bush II as a nazi?

 

The simple fact of the matter is that Obama is the face of oppression and will, should he get his way, lead America into a facist police state ruled by a hidden oligarchy who hides behind the scenes dictating policy. Most of our "elected" leaders are nothing more than brainless, spineless, sycophantic puppets who dance, perform and do the bidding of the ruling financial elite.

 

It's no coincidence that we only have "two" political parties from which to choose. It's also no coincidence that the members of these "two" parties are so close to each other it's almost impossible to see where one ends and the other begins.

 

1. Yes I was. I think both comparisons of Bush/Obama to Hitler/the Antichrist are equally ludicrous. I was an undergrad when the Bush hate rose to a fevered pitch. I despised the constant Nazi/anti-Christ/worst president ever comments that flowed rampant through the student body. For the record, I think history will look more kindly on Bush than current public opinion indicates.

 

2. Wow...Obama as the face of oppression who is seeking to turn the US into a facist police state ruled by a hidden oligarchy?! Are you trolling or being serious? That might be one of the most disturbing posts I've ever read. I do like how you refer to it as a "simple fact" and then throw in a series of inflammatory statements without any sort of reference to a single actual FACT. Hmmmmm....I'm going to assume it was a trolling post unless you show otherwise. (please, please . . . don't use youtube as a source. Your credibility will be entirely gone.)

 

3. As long as we are laying it all out there I also despise the Obama is the savior/can do no wrong crowd. Obama (who I might add is MUCH MUCH smarter than all of us . . . head of his class at Harvard Law, wow!) does want what he feels is best for the US. Bush, likewise, wanted what he thought was best for the US. I have my own opinions of what is best for the US, and they don't align exactly with either.

[strigori]

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. Yikes.

 

(If you don't know Godwin's Law, you should. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law AKA reductio ad hitlerum. Either way, the conversation is irrevocably lost if either Hitler or Nazi Germany are mentioned.)

 

Did you even watch the video? Go ahead, click the link and watch.

 

I'll repost the link here for your ease and convenience.

 

 

What I'm saying here guys is ask yourself some very basic questions about what you believe:

 

Do you believe in freedom?

Do you believe that individuals should be responsible for their own lives?

Do you think that the federal government has grown too large?

Do think that entitlement programs need to be expanded?

Do you think that the money you work so hard for should be taxed even more to fund entitlement programs?

 

 

If you answer yes to the first three questions and no to the second two then you seriously need to do some research on just exactly what Obama wants to do. Then, look into the people who he appointed as members of his cabinet and what they are trying to do. Trust me...it'll give you the creeps.

1 -Freedom has responsibility that must go with it, or you just have anarchy. There is also an amount of social contentiousness that needs to go with it also.

2 -Yeah, people should be responsible for their own lives, but RESPONSIBILITY has to go with it. And sadly massive numbers of people are not responsible, hence the need for things like laws.

3 - Everyone who talks about the size of government is talking about certain parts only. Are there some parts that get to being kinda absurd? Sure, find me a government anywhere that isnt this way, hell find me a large business that isnt this way. They dont exist.

4 - Do you have an alternative? Let people starve to death? Die from lack of medical care? I dont think we could call ourselves a civilized nation if we allowed those things to happen. We desperately need a national health care plan, not this BS mess through employers and with all the control with people who want to make money on your health, or death if that ends up costing less.

5 - Unless you are one of the top 1% who has been looting the nation over the last 15 years, your taxes are going down. Are you aware that the top 1% 'earns' 50% of all income in this country? And in large part, right now those extra tax dollars are going to try to fix the disaster that that 1% has driving the economy into.

 

It is so very easy to take things out of context, mix them together and make it seem like something else for your own desires. The fact that it comes from Faux News should speak volumes. And the moment Hitler or the Nazis enter into any political discussion, means the other person has already won.

 

The Idea that funding programs that promote volunteerism is somehow creating an army is backwoods paranoia. Oh no, more people tutoring kids, or helping the elderly, what ever are we going to do.

[carlfense]

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. Yikes.

 

(If you don't know Godwin's Law, you should. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law AKA reductio ad hitlerum. Either way, the conversation is irrevocably lost if either Hitler or Nazi Germany are mentioned.)

 

Did you even watch the video? Go ahead, click the link and watch.

 

I'll repost the link here for your ease and convenience.

 

 

What I'm saying here guys is ask yourself some very basic questions about what you believe:

 

Do you believe in freedom?

Do you believe that individuals should be responsible for their own lives?

Do you think that the federal government has grown too large?

Do think that entitlement programs need to be expanded?

Do you think that the money you work so hard for should be taxed even more to fund entitlement programs?

 

 

If you answer yes to the first three questions and no to the second two then you seriously need to do some research on just exactly what Obama wants to do. Then, look into the people who he appointed as members of his cabinet and what they are trying to do. Trust me...it'll give you the creeps.

1 -Freedom has responsibility that must go with it, or you just have anarchy. There is also an amount of social contentiousness that needs to go with it also.

2 -Yeah, people should be responsible for their own lives, but RESPONSIBILITY has to go with it. And sadly massive numbers of people are not responsible, hence the need for things like laws.

3 - Everyone who talks about the size of government is talking about certain parts only. Are there some parts that get to being kinda absurd? Sure, find me a government anywhere that isnt this way, hell find me a large business that isnt this way. They dont exist.

4 - Do you have an alternative? Let people starve to death? Die from lack of medical care? I dont think we could call ourselves a civilized nation if we allowed those things to happen. We desperately need a national health care plan, not this BS mess through employers and with all the control with people who want to make money on your health, or death if that ends up costing less.

5 - Unless you are one of the top 1% who has been looting the nation over the last 15 years, your taxes are going down. Are you aware that the top 1% 'earns' 50% of all income in this country? And in large part, right now those extra tax dollars are going to try to fix the disaster that that 1% has driving the economy into.

 

It is so very easy to take things out of context, mix them together and make it seem like something else for your own desires. The fact that it comes from Faux News should speak volumes. And the moment Hitler or the Nazis enter into any political discussion, means the other person has already won.

 

The Idea that funding programs that promote volunteerism is somehow creating an army is backwoods paranoia. Oh no, more people tutoring kids, or helping the elderly, what ever are we going to do.

 

You sir, swung the hammer surely, and hit the nail square on the head. Thank you for your post.

[HuskerJen]

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. Yikes.

 

(If you don't know Godwin's Law, you should. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law AKA reductio ad hitlerum. Either way, the conversation is irrevocably lost if either Hitler or Nazi Germany are mentioned.)

 

Did you even watch the video? Go ahead, click the link and watch.

 

I'll repost the link here for your ease and convenience.

 

 

What I'm saying here guys is ask yourself some very basic questions about what you believe:

 

Do you believe in freedom?

Do you believe that individuals should be responsible for their own lives?

Do you think that the federal government has grown too large?

Do think that entitlement programs need to be expanded?

Do you think that the money you work so hard for should be taxed even more to fund entitlement programs?

 

 

If you answer yes to the first three questions and no to the second two then you seriously need to do some research on just exactly what Obama wants to do. Then, look into the people who he appointed as members of his cabinet and what they are trying to do. Trust me...it'll give you the creeps.

1 -Freedom has responsibility that must go with it, or you just have anarchy. There is also an amount of social contentiousness that needs to go with it also.

2 -Yeah, people should be responsible for their own lives, but RESPONSIBILITY has to go with it. And sadly massive numbers of people are not responsible, hence the need for things like laws.

3 - Everyone who talks about the size of government is talking about certain parts only. Are there some parts that get to being kinda absurd? Sure, find me a government anywhere that isnt this way, hell find me a large business that isnt this way. They dont exist.

4 - Do you have an alternative? Let people starve to death? Die from lack of medical care? I dont think we could call ourselves a civilized nation if we allowed those things to happen. We desperately need a national health care plan, not this BS mess through employers and with all the control with people who want to make money on your health, or death if that ends up costing less.

5 - Unless you are one of the top 1% who has been looting the nation over the last 15 years, your taxes are going down. Are you aware that the top 1% 'earns' 50% of all income in this country? And in large part, right now those extra tax dollars are going to try to fix the disaster that that 1% has driving the economy into.

 

It is so very easy to take things out of context, mix them together and make it seem like something else for your own desires. The fact that it comes from Faux News should speak volumes. And the moment Hitler or the Nazis enter into any political discussion, means the other person has already won.

 

The Idea that funding programs that promote volunteerism is somehow creating an army is backwoods paranoia. Oh no, more people tutoring kids, or helping the elderly, what ever are we going to do.

 

Typical tax the rich class warfare rhetoric.

 

1. Faux news...I was wondering how long it would take you to make that reference. You will excoriate Fox News for slanted journalism but you'll stand idly by while a CNN reporter insults people who come out to protest "the chosen one."

 

2. Do you even understand that I used Obama's own words, at a rally where he spoke, to prove my point.

 

Use your damn head...What do you think this "Civilian National Defense Force" is going to be used for?

 

Does this "civilian national defense force" that Obama wants to create need to be trained and funded just like our military to do volunteer work?

 

And why in the world would it need to be "just as strong, just as powerful and just as funded as our military?"

 

So...what could this Civilian National Defense Force be used for?

 

* Fighting wars against foreign powers? Nope we have the military and national guard.

* Enforcing/protecting the borders? Nope we hace the Border Patrol and ICE.

* Fighting the war on drugs? Nope we have the DEA.

* Investigating major crime(s) across several locations, states or nationally? Nope that's the FBI's job.

* Is it to protect us from enemies outside the US? Nope that's the NSA and CIA's domain.

* Is it to provide local law enforcement? Nope we have police, sherriff's, state patrol, etc.

* Is it to provide disaster relief? That's FEMA's realm.

 

So, given that all these organizations already exist with their areas of responsibility already defined, what exactly will be the role of this civilian national defense force?

 

I want you to thoroughly explain this.

 

Keeping in mind that no brutal dictator ever came into power telling people once in he would torture, kill and terrorize the very people who placed him into power.

[bennychico11]

one of my favorite clips:

 

http://www.hulu.com/watch/66843/the-daily-...obey#s-p1-st-i1

[carlfense]

(the points are HuskerJen's. My answers are in parentheses. Yikes.)

 

Typical tax the rich class warfare rhetoric. (Wait, what? Is this serious?)

 

1. Faux news...I was wondering how long it would take you to make that reference. You will excoriate Fox News for slanted journalism but you'll stand idly by while a CNN reporter insults people who come out to protest "the chosen one." (I hate slanted journalism when it is slanted either way. I'll agree that at least Fox is honest about it's bias, they don't try to hide it. CNN is probably slanted to the left, but not quite to the extent that Fox is slanted to the right.)

 

2. Do you even understand that I used Obama's own words, at a rally where he spoke, to prove my point. (You sure did. Now if you could, or ANYONE could, find the context with which this 15 word sequence is cut from we might be able to understand what in the hell Obama is actually talking about. Are you insinuating that you can determine a broad based facist agenda from an out of context quote? Why is everyone so afraid of hearing the entire speech? Why will no one display the transcript?)

 

3. Use your damn head...What do you think this "Civilian National Defense Force" is going to be used for? (Listen to your little clip again. It's short. Shouldn't take you too long. Tell me how many times Obama says "Civilian national defense force." By my count . . . it's zero. He does say civilian national security force. What type of security is he talking about here? It doesn't say. And unfortunately there is no context to provide an answer either because this conspiratorial video editor doesn't want to provide one. Obama could mean financial security (welfare), job security (unemployment insurance), personal security (health care), etc. etc. etc. You are putting words in his mouth that he didn't say. If you can't grasp the difference between "defense" and "security" then this is going nowhere.)

 

Does this "civilian national defense force" that Obama wants to create need to be trained and funded just like our military to do volunteer work? (Once again. Your harebrained agenda is adding words that Obama never said. There is no mention of "training" whatsoever in your prized clip, let alone military style training. As for funding, of course it will be funded the same way as the military, by tax dollars.)

 

And why in the world would it need to be "just as strong, just as powerful and just as funded as our military?"

 

So...what could this Civilian National Defense Force be used for? (there is NO MENTION of a Civilian National Defense Force. Give it up.)

 

* Fighting wars against foreign powers? Nope we have the military and national guard.

* Enforcing/protecting the borders? Nope we hace the Border Patrol and ICE.

* Fighting the war on drugs? Nope we have the DEA.

* Investigating major crime(s) across several locations, states or nationally? Nope that's the FBI's job.

* Is it to protect us from enemies outside the US? Nope that's the NSA and CIA's domain.

* Is it to provide local law enforcement? Nope we have police, sherriff's, state patrol, etc.

* Is it to provide disaster relief? That's FEMA's realm.

 

So, given that all these organizations already exist with their areas of responsibility already defined, what exactly will be the role of this civilian national defense force? (I'm going to go out on a limb and guess (granted without the benefit of knowing what on earth the actual speech was about) that this is a version of AmeriCorps and maybe even shades of a return of the CCC. I wonder if people said the same things when FDR did the same programs decades ago? Probably...)

 

I want you to thoroughly explain this. (And I want you to thoroughly provide us with the full context of the speech so we can make a real analysis of what is being said and why. Unfortunately, that's about as likely as me convincing you that Obama is not the anti-Christ.)

 

Keeping in mind that no brutal dictator ever came into power telling people once in he would torture, kill and terrorize the very people who placed him into power. (Jen . . . if you actually believe this about Obama . . . wow. Your grammar and word choice hint that you're intelligent, but if you believe this I am convinced otherwise.)

[carlfense]

one of my favorite clips:

 

http://www.hulu.com/watch/66843/the-daily-...obey#s-p1-st-i1

 

I may not like Barack Obama that much, but that is absolutely hilarious. Thank you for the laugh. Not much to disagree with in it either!

[bennychico11]

carlfense and everyone else who keep asking...here:

 

Source

 

Q:

 

Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"?

I read a quote from Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia which stated that Obama wants to set up a civilian national security force that was similar to the "Gestapo" or the Nazi Brownshirts.

 

What is the truth behind Obama's statements that he wants to create a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military]"?

 

 

A:

 

This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama's call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.

This question stems from an interview that Republican Rep. Broun of Georgia gave to The Associated Press Nov. 10. The story carried a headline, "Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship." It said that Broun "fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship." And it quoted him this way:

 

Rep. Paul Broun, Nov. 10: It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's [Obama's] the one who proposed this national security force. ... That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did.

 

Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a "civilian national security force" in a campaign speech in Colorado. Obama's detractors make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the U.S. military. They also ignore the context.

Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.

 

Here is the relevant portion of what Obama actually said, with the sentences quoted selectively by Broun and others in bold.

 

Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

 

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 – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

 

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. 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. 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.

 

Does that sound like a force that could kick down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a Gulag or concentration camp? You decide.

 

-Brooks Jackson

[bennychico11]

fascism!!! tyranny!!! those scary AmeriCorps, Peace Corps and USA Freedom Corps people!!

[carlfense]

carlfense and everyone else who keep asking...here:

 

Source

 

Q:

 

Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"?

I read a quote from Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia which stated that Obama wants to set up a civilian national security force that was similar to the "Gestapo" or the Nazi Brownshirts.

 

What is the truth behind Obama's statements that he wants to create a "civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military]"?

 

 

A:

 

This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama's call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.

This question stems from an interview that Republican Rep. Broun of Georgia gave to The Associated Press Nov. 10. The story carried a headline, "Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship." It said that Broun "fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship." And it quoted him this way:

 

Rep. Paul Broun, Nov. 10: It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's [Obama's] the one who proposed this national security force. ... That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did.

 

Similar claims have been circulating in right-leaning blogs and conservative Web sites ever since July, when Obama made a single reference to a "civilian national security force" in a campaign speech in Colorado. Obama's detractors make much of his expansive (and exaggerated) description of such a force as being "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the U.S. military. They also ignore the context.

Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.

 

Here is the relevant portion of what Obama actually said, with the sentences quoted selectively by Broun and others in bold.

 

Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

 

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 – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

 

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. 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. 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.

 

Does that sound like a force that could kick down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a Gulag or concentration camp? You decide.

 

-Brooks Jackson

 

Thank you so much Bennychico. I expected as much. How did you find this? I really did look. I couldn't find the transcript. Just page after page of conspiracy theories...

 

How terrifying does that sound Jen?!

[bennychico11]

Calling Obama a “socialist” simply isn’t logical. He doesn’t share the belief that industries should be nationalized by the government or even taken over by the workers as many American Marxists espouse. He may not be as wedded to the free market as a conservative but he doesn’t want to get rid of it. He wants to regulate it. He wants “capitalism with a human face.” He wants to mitigate some of the effects of the market when people lose. This is boilerplate Democratic party liberalism not radical socialism.

 

I detest conservatives throwing around the words “socialism” and “Marxism” when it comes to Obama as much as I get angry when idiot liberals toss around the word “fascist” when describing conservatives. I’m sorry but this is ignorant. It bespeaks a lack of knowledge of what socialism and communism represent as well as an ignorance of simple definitions. Obama will not set up a government agency to plan the economy. He will not as president, require businesses to meet targets for production. He will not outlaw profit. He will not put workers in charge of companies (unless it is negotiated between unions and management. It is not unheard of in this country and the practice may become more common in these perilous economic times.).

 

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008...ot-a-socialist/

[carlfense]

fascism!!! tyranny!!! those scary AmeriCorps, Peace Corps and USA Freedom Corps people!!

 

Haha.

 

Yep. Terrifying.

[bennychico11]

Thank you so much Bennychico. I expected as much. How did you find this? I really did look. I couldn't find the transcript. Just page after page of conspiracy theories...

 

How terrifying does that sound Jen?!

 

no problem

factcheck.org....it's a great site for stuff like this.

[strigori]

I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. Yikes.

 

(If you don't know Godwin's Law, you should. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law AKA reductio ad hitlerum. Either way, the conversation is irrevocably lost if either Hitler or Nazi Germany are mentioned.)

 

Did you even watch the video? Go ahead, click the link and watch.

 

I'll repost the link here for your ease and convenience.

 

 

What I'm saying here guys is ask yourself some very basic questions about what you believe:

 

Do you believe in freedom?

Do you believe that individuals should be responsible for their own lives?

Do you think that the federal government has grown too large?

Do think that entitlement programs need to be expanded?

Do you think that the money you work so hard for should be taxed even more to fund entitlement programs?

 

 

If you answer yes to the first three questions and no to the second two then you seriously need to do some research on just exactly what Obama wants to do. Then, look into the people who he appointed as members of his cabinet and what they are trying to do. Trust me...it'll give you the creeps.

1 -Freedom has responsibility that must go with it, or you just have anarchy. There is also an amount of social contentiousness that needs to go with it also.

2 -Yeah, people should be responsible for their own lives, but RESPONSIBILITY has to go with it. And sadly massive numbers of people are not responsible, hence the need for things like laws.

3 - Everyone who talks about the size of government is talking about certain parts only. Are there some parts that get to being kinda absurd? Sure, find me a government anywhere that isnt this way, hell find me a large business that isnt this way. They dont exist.

4 - Do you have an alternative? Let people starve to death? Die from lack of medical care? I dont think we could call ourselves a civilized nation if we allowed those things to happen. We desperately need a national health care plan, not this BS mess through employers and with all the control with people who want to make money on your health, or death if that ends up costing less.

5 - Unless you are one of the top 1% who has been looting the nation over the last 15 years, your taxes are going down. Are you aware that the top 1% 'earns' 50% of all income in this country? And in large part, right now those extra tax dollars are going to try to fix the disaster that that 1% has driving the economy into.

 

It is so very easy to take things out of context, mix them together and make it seem like something else for your own desires. The fact that it comes from Faux News should speak volumes. And the moment Hitler or the Nazis enter into any political discussion, means the other person has already won.

 

The Idea that funding programs that promote volunteerism is somehow creating an army is backwoods paranoia. Oh no, more people tutoring kids, or helping the elderly, what ever are we going to do.

 

Typical tax the rich class warfare rhetoric.

 

1. Faux news...I was wondering how long it would take you to make that reference. You will excoriate Fox News for slanted journalism but you'll stand idly by while a CNN reporter insults people who come out to protest "the chosen one."

 

2. Do you even understand that I used Obama's own words, at a rally where he spoke, to prove my point.

 

Use your damn head...What do you think this "Civilian National Defense Force" is going to be used for?

 

Does this "civilian national defense force" that Obama wants to create need to be trained and funded just like our military to do volunteer work?

 

And why in the world would it need to be "just as strong, just as powerful and just as funded as our military?"

 

So...what could this Civilian National Defense Force be used for?

 

* Fighting wars against foreign powers? Nope we have the military and national guard.

* Enforcing/protecting the borders? Nope we hace the Border Patrol and ICE.

* Fighting the war on drugs? Nope we have the DEA.

* Investigating major crime(s) across several locations, states or nationally? Nope that's the FBI's job.

* Is it to protect us from enemies outside the US? Nope that's the NSA and CIA's domain.

* Is it to provide local law enforcement? Nope we have police, sherriff's, state patrol, etc.

* Is it to provide disaster relief? That's FEMA's realm.

 

So, given that all these organizations already exist with their areas of responsibility already defined, what exactly will be the role of this civilian national defense force?

 

I want you to thoroughly explain this.

 

Keeping in mind that no brutal dictator ever came into power telling people once in he would torture, kill and terrorize the very people who placed him into power.

1 - almost all 'news' is just infotainment anymore. Sad really. But Fox is so far out there they might as well be a wing of the republican party.

2 - I think Benny managed to debunk your conspiracy theory. Its amazing how context and facts do that.

Hide and cower in fear of the (Bush initialized) volunteerism programs that anyone with any sense is supportive of. Hell the bill that passed was sponsored by Kennedy and Hatch. The most liberal and most conservative members of the Senate wrote it together, scary.....