The Forgotten Right

[carlfense]

Context and facts are a scary thing, no?

[SOCALHUSKER]

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/

 

Wow!! Thanks for the factcheck info on the CNDC Benny. However, just because it's in the context of doing good doesn't make it constitutional. In fact, it's actually beyond the limitations of the federal government, as outlined in the Constitution, to "fund" a "volunteer" corps.

 

By the way, what is the above quote about? Is this some kind of joke? Did you check the date of the post, 10/9/2008. I'd say a lot has changed since that time. Maybe his assumptions about industry nationalization, economy control, and worker control were a little premature.

[SOCALHUSKER]

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

 

Carlfense brought up the point that by security it could mean personal, financial or job security but Obama's exact words are "national security." So what are the national security objectives his speaks of, the same one's established with the Patriot Act? Also, as Jen posted earlier and was seemingly ignored, don't we already have entities in place that are supposed to accomplish those objectives?

[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

 

Carlfense brought up the point that by security it could mean personal, financial or job security but Obama's exact words are "national security." So what are the national security objectives his speaks of, the same one's established with the Patriot Act? Also, as Jen posted earlier and was seemingly ignored, don't we already have entities in place that are supposed to accomplish those objectives?

 

I put the answer to your question in bold. In context, his "national security" statement = "national goals." (he further explains these to include health care, environmental security, education, and national standing, i.e. helping other countries.)

[carlfense]

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/

 

Wow!! Thanks for the factcheck info on the CNDC Benny. However, just because it's in the context of doing good doesn't make it constitutional. In fact, it's actually beyond the limitations of the federal government, as outlined in the Constitution, to "fund" a "volunteer" corps.

 

By the way, what is the above quote about? Is this some kind of joke? Did you check the date of the post, 10/9/2008. I'd say a lot has changed since that time. Maybe his assumptions about industry nationalization, economy control, and worker control were a little premature.

 

No it's not. Please point me to the section that you think shows that the federal government cannot fund a volunteer organization.

 

I'd direct you to Article I, Section 8, which states in part: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . . ."

 

Therefore, if the volunteer organization promotes the general welfare of the United States, it is clearly within the purview of the Constituion.

[SOCALHUSKER]

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/

 

Wow!! Thanks for the factcheck info on the CNDC Benny. However, just because it's in the context of doing good doesn't make it constitutional. In fact, it's actually beyond the limitations of the federal government, as outlined in the Constitution, to "fund" a "volunteer" corps.

 

By the way, what is the above quote about? Is this some kind of joke? Did you check the date of the post, 10/9/2008. I'd say a lot has changed since that time. Maybe his assumptions about industry nationalization, economy control, and worker control were a little premature.

 

No it's not. Please point me to the section that you think shows that the federal government cannot fund a volunteer organization.

 

I'd direct you to Article I, Section 8, which states in part: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . . ."

 

Therefore, if the volunteer organization promotes the general welfare of the United States, it is clearly within the purview of the Constituion.

 

I stand corrected, if the "true" function of the CNDC is intently used to promote the general welfare.

 

However, the idea that the government will "fund" those who perform acts of charity is contrary to the very idea of charity. It removes the responsibility for charity from the people and places it with the government, thereby destroying private initiative. Furthermore, this allows the government to force its agendas on the volunteers as well as those excepting the benefits; leading to more special-interest lobbying, causing a greater dependency on government programs and eventually leading to the need for more government intervention and possibly involutary servitude. So, while the intial intent of the the Civilian Corps might be for the promtion of our general welfare, it is far more likely to have disastrous consequences that we can guarantee will be felt by all.

[carlfense]

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/

 

Wow!! Thanks for the factcheck info on the CNDC Benny. However, just because it's in the context of doing good doesn't make it constitutional. In fact, it's actually beyond the limitations of the federal government, as outlined in the Constitution, to "fund" a "volunteer" corps.

 

By the way, what is the above quote about? Is this some kind of joke? Did you check the date of the post, 10/9/2008. I'd say a lot has changed since that time. Maybe his assumptions about industry nationalization, economy control, and worker control were a little premature.

 

No it's not. Please point me to the section that you think shows that the federal government cannot fund a volunteer organization.

 

I'd direct you to Article I, Section 8, which states in part: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . . ."

 

Therefore, if the volunteer organization promotes the general welfare of the United States, it is clearly within the purview of the Constituion.

 

I stand corrected, if the "true" function of the CNDC is intently used to promote the general welfare.

 

However, the idea that the government will "fund" those who perform acts of charity is contrary to the very idea of charity. It removes the responsibility for charity from the people and places it with the government, thereby destroying private initiative. Furthermore, this allows the government to force its agendas on the volunteers as well as those excepting the benefits; leading to more special-interest lobbying, causing a greater dependency on government programs and eventually leading to the need for more government intervention and possibly involutary servitude. So, while the intial intent of the the Civilian Corps might be for the promtion of our general welfare, it is far more likely to have disastrous consequences that we can guarantee will be felt by all.

 

Possibly. However, there is a big difference between what your (or my) opinion is and calling something unconstitutional.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Keep laughing because that'll be coming. As a historian I think you would be well aware of the fact that once government gets its hands on something it's never giving it back and it only exploits and manipulates the programs to benefit its agenda.

 

Getting back to the original topic of this thread here's another article about the National Service Act, U.S. needs to replace greed with good deeds, which displays the absurdity of some people's thinking regarding our own rights and freedoms and the role of government

 

Just an example "In the economics of hope, people take little for themselves and generate actual value for others"

 

One of the comments below the article says it best when captainjameson9 responds, "whatever Daly, friggin worm. America is by far the most charitable and generous nation in the world. for every bit of greed there are good deeds ten fold. the economics of hope is called charity. govt doesn't produce anything but more govt. as for charity, this administration is trying to snuff it out so they can control the supply of charity. people giving freely of themselves to stock food banks and serve at community soup kitchens provides more value and character than dangling a carrot stick ($$$) to entice it. if you think charity is a good thing and you want to help your fellow citizens, your local place of worship has programs where you can volunteer. if you need to be payed, that makes you an employee, not a volunteer."

 

I'm not a historian. I'm a law student. As far as your statement of the government grabbing something and not letting go, look up the Civilian Conservation Corps. (the CCC that I referenced earlier) It was implemented by FDR. It served it's purpose and it was phased out. If you want more examples I'd be happy to provide them.

 

What makes you think that will be coming? Intuition? Secret sources? Conspiracy theorists?

 

If you call fighting World War II phasing something out I guess you can use the CCC as an example. More specifically, it wasn't a matter of the government letting something go, rather than it was reallocating it's resources. The only reason the CCC was not used much after 1940 was because all the workers got drafted. All work efforts of the country were shifted towards the war and the US simply had no manpower to keep the program going. Don't let the reallocation of workers from one government venture to the next mislead you to believe the government ever gives something up, because it doesn't. If you do have other examples I'd love to hear them.

[SOCALHUSKER]

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/

 

Wow!! Thanks for the factcheck info on the CNDC Benny. However, just because it's in the context of doing good doesn't make it constitutional. In fact, it's actually beyond the limitations of the federal government, as outlined in the Constitution, to "fund" a "volunteer" corps.

 

By the way, what is the above quote about? Is this some kind of joke? Did you check the date of the post, 10/9/2008. I'd say a lot has changed since that time. Maybe his assumptions about industry nationalization, economy control, and worker control were a little premature.

 

No it's not. Please point me to the section that you think shows that the federal government cannot fund a volunteer organization.

 

I'd direct you to Article I, Section 8, which states in part: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . . ."

 

Therefore, if the volunteer organization promotes the general welfare of the United States, it is clearly within the purview of the Constituion.

 

I stand corrected, if the "true" function of the CNDC is intently used to promote the general welfare.

 

However, the idea that the government will "fund" those who perform acts of charity is contrary to the very idea of charity. It removes the responsibility for charity from the people and places it with the government, thereby destroying private initiative. Furthermore, this allows the government to force its agendas on the volunteers as well as those excepting the benefits; leading to more special-interest lobbying, causing a greater dependency on government programs and eventually leading to the need for more government intervention and possibly involutary servitude. So, while the intial intent of the the Civilian Corps might be for the promtion of our general welfare, it is far more likely to have disastrous consequences that we can guarantee will be felt by all.

 

Possibly. However, there is a big difference between what your (or my) opinion is and calling something unconstitutional.

 

Very true!! I just don't see how a program like this could lead anywhere but to the deteriotion of our freedom, which anyway you look at it, is unconstitutional.

[carlfense]

 

Keep laughing because that'll be coming. As a historian I think you would be well aware of the fact that once government gets its hands on something it's never giving it back and it only exploits and manipulates the programs to benefit its agenda.

 

Getting back to the original topic of this thread here's another article about the National Service Act, U.S. needs to replace greed with good deeds, which displays the absurdity of some people's thinking regarding our own rights and freedoms and the role of government

 

Just an example "In the economics of hope, people take little for themselves and generate actual value for others"

 

One of the comments below the article says it best when captainjameson9 responds, "whatever Daly, friggin worm. America is by far the most charitable and generous nation in the world. for every bit of greed there are good deeds ten fold. the economics of hope is called charity. govt doesn't produce anything but more govt. as for charity, this administration is trying to snuff it out so they can control the supply of charity. people giving freely of themselves to stock food banks and serve at community soup kitchens provides more value and character than dangling a carrot stick ($$$) to entice it. if you think charity is a good thing and you want to help your fellow citizens, your local place of worship has programs where you can volunteer. if you need to be payed, that makes you an employee, not a volunteer."

 

I'm not a historian. I'm a law student. As far as your statement of the government grabbing something and not letting go, look up the Civilian Conservation Corps. (the CCC that I referenced earlier) It was implemented by FDR. It served it's purpose and it was phased out. If you want more examples I'd be happy to provide them.

 

What makes you think that will be coming? Intuition? Secret sources? Conspiracy theorists?

 

If you call fighting World War II phasing something out I guess you can use the CCC as an example. More specifically, it wasn't a matter of the government letting something go, rather than it was reallocating it's resources. The only reason the CCC was not used much after 1940 was because all the workers got drafted. All work efforts of the country were shifted towards the war and the US simply had no manpower to keep the program going. Don't let the reallocation of workers from one government venture to the next mislead you to believe the government ever gives something up, because it doesn't. If you do have other examples I'd love to hear them.

 

I suppose if you want a different example of a program that was voluntarily phased out you could check out the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. That New Deal program ended in 1957, not as a result of lack of manpower.

 

If you want to expand it to include various bills, check out the ones that have sunset provisions. (biggest example recently would be the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007) Yet another example of the government relinquishing power (although a minority is still pushing for re-enacting it, including Obama . . . although his support for re-instating it has dampened somewhat following his election).

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Keep laughing because that'll be coming. As a historian I think you would be well aware of the fact that once government gets its hands on something it's never giving it back and it only exploits and manipulates the programs to benefit its agenda.

 

Getting back to the original topic of this thread here's another article about the National Service Act, U.S. needs to replace greed with good deeds, which displays the absurdity of some people's thinking regarding our own rights and freedoms and the role of government

 

Just an example "In the economics of hope, people take little for themselves and generate actual value for others"

 

One of the comments below the article says it best when captainjameson9 responds, "whatever Daly, friggin worm. America is by far the most charitable and generous nation in the world. for every bit of greed there are good deeds ten fold. the economics of hope is called charity. govt doesn't produce anything but more govt. as for charity, this administration is trying to snuff it out so they can control the supply of charity. people giving freely of themselves to stock food banks and serve at community soup kitchens provides more value and character than dangling a carrot stick ($$$) to entice it. if you think charity is a good thing and you want to help your fellow citizens, your local place of worship has programs where you can volunteer. if you need to be payed, that makes you an employee, not a volunteer."

 

I'm not a historian. I'm a law student. As far as your statement of the government grabbing something and not letting go, look up the Civilian Conservation Corps. (the CCC that I referenced earlier) It was implemented by FDR. It served it's purpose and it was phased out. If you want more examples I'd be happy to provide them.

 

What makes you think that will be coming? Intuition? Secret sources? Conspiracy theorists?

 

If you call fighting World War II phasing something out I guess you can use the CCC as an example. More specifically, it wasn't a matter of the government letting something go, rather than it was reallocating it's resources. The only reason the CCC was not used much after 1940 was because all the workers got drafted. All work efforts of the country were shifted towards the war and the US simply had no manpower to keep the program going. Don't let the reallocation of workers from one government venture to the next mislead you to believe the government ever gives something up, because it doesn't. If you do have other examples I'd love to hear them.

 

I suppose if you want a different example of a program that was voluntarily phased out you could check out the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. That New Deal program ended in 1957, not as a result of lack of manpower.

 

If you want to expand it to include various bills, check out the ones that have sunset provisions. (biggest example recently would be the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007) Yet another example of the government relinquishing power (although a minority is still pushing for re-enacting it, including Obama . . . although his support for re-instating it has dampened somewhat following his election).

 

I'll have to check those out. It's been great having this discussion and even better to hear people who are actually thinking for themselves.

[HuskerJen]

 

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.....

 

 

 

1. Okay, you can't explain the purpose of Obama's "Nation Civilian Defense Force."

 

 

 

2. You failed to explain why this organization would need to be trained and funded just like the military-to do volunteer work.

 

 

 

3. You failed completely to understand that I used Obama's own words.

[carlfense]

 

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.....

 

 

 

1. Okay, you can't explain the purpose of Obama's "Nation Civilian Defense Force."

 

 

 

2. You failed to explain why this organization would need to be trained and funded just like the military-to do volunteer work.

 

 

 

3. You failed completely to understand that I used Obama's own words.

 

Did you miss the whole conversation? There is no "National Civilian Defense Force." They are not going to be trained just like the military. You did use Obama's words...entirely out of context. I hope everyone else is getting as big of a kick out of this as I am. Talk about your willful ignorance . . .

[Vince from ShamWOW]

This is great.

 

Jen, you just keep on keepin on. You get it.

 

[carlfense]

This is great.

 

Jen, you just keep on keepin on. You get it.

 

I see what you did there.