I've been really busy lately, but I'll just post what I said on election day (although I don't agree with all his policies on trade with Canada):
woo-hoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OBAMA WON!!!
Re: OBAMA WON!!!
If the champagne has now been drunk, and the hangovers cleared, you may want to cast an eye at what maybe in store for you. If I may, an Obama quote and a news story, see what flows from the two.
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gLy- ... D94BVTE00 link
So you have a new federal security force, set up exactly as you please and new secret courts. So all you need do is accuse someone of pretty much any serious sounding offence, have your security cart them off to a new court, try them in secret by any method you care to invent, almost certainly don’t have juries instead relying upon specially appointed judges and hey presto, you can do exactly what you want ~ dictatorship in all but name.
Develop the idea somewhat? Take a lot of urban, disaffected youth, give them smart new uniforms, guns and cars, plus carte blanche to do more or less whatever they want. Deputised thugs with night-sticks! Make them take an oath of allegiance not to the constitution but to the federal government agency that is newly created to employ them. In your new secret courts, (ostensibly set-up to process Guantanamo suspects but actually to persecute your enemies or anyone who is inconvenient) have more senior apparatchiks you appoint from the Democratic party as judges ~ you think they wouldn't play ball?. Anyone fancy being charged with invented crimes and having Rev Wright as judge prosecutor? No lawyers of course because nothing to hide, nothing to fear etc Then carted off in secret to the special jails that will be necessary for Guantanamo suspects.
A smart man would do all this after disarming his victims so expect serious and expeditious attempts to repeal the second amendment. This is exactly what the Austrian did after 1933.
Maybe you aren't worried because after all, you mostly back Obama right? Revolutions always eat their children first.
It’s all too possible if he cares to do it.
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gLy- ... D94BVTE00 link
So you have a new federal security force, set up exactly as you please and new secret courts. So all you need do is accuse someone of pretty much any serious sounding offence, have your security cart them off to a new court, try them in secret by any method you care to invent, almost certainly don’t have juries instead relying upon specially appointed judges and hey presto, you can do exactly what you want ~ dictatorship in all but name.
Develop the idea somewhat? Take a lot of urban, disaffected youth, give them smart new uniforms, guns and cars, plus carte blanche to do more or less whatever they want. Deputised thugs with night-sticks! Make them take an oath of allegiance not to the constitution but to the federal government agency that is newly created to employ them. In your new secret courts, (ostensibly set-up to process Guantanamo suspects but actually to persecute your enemies or anyone who is inconvenient) have more senior apparatchiks you appoint from the Democratic party as judges ~ you think they wouldn't play ball?. Anyone fancy being charged with invented crimes and having Rev Wright as judge prosecutor? No lawyers of course because nothing to hide, nothing to fear etc Then carted off in secret to the special jails that will be necessary for Guantanamo suspects.
A smart man would do all this after disarming his victims so expect serious and expeditious attempts to repeal the second amendment. This is exactly what the Austrian did after 1933.
Maybe you aren't worried because after all, you mostly back Obama right? Revolutions always eat their children first.
It’s all too possible if he cares to do it.
Re: OBAMA WON!!!
In case anyone else reading takes this distortion at face value, the "civilian national security" phrase was part of a speech devoted to a call to service, specifically talking about the expansion of AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, all of which information has been readily available on his website for months. (I know, because I bothered to look up his stance on the issues, unlike people who only care to distort and fear-monger (is that a verb? It is now).) These organisations already exist. Their purposes include things like disaster relief, global charitable and aid work, and encouraging civic and community participation. The USA Freedom Corps was set up in response to George W. Bush's call to service following 9/11. None of these organisations are secret or illicit in any way.
Here is a link with the full text of that section of Obama's speech, and a link to a video of him saying it in context (scroll to about 14 mins for the relevant section).
Here is a link with the full text of that section of Obama's speech, and a link to a video of him saying it in context (scroll to about 14 mins for the relevant section).
Re: OBAMA WON!!!
I also looked at his website. It changed from a "requirement" to a "goal" with a $4000 tax credit for 100 hours work. So coercion gave way to bribery, but I'll bet we see coercion back as the money runs out.
And would you really imagine that when someone seeking election with dubious intentions talks about a national security force, he would actually say "Yep, kiss goodbye to the constitution and miranda rights suckers" Why not simply say "expand the peace corps" if that is the plan?
Nope, when you've told one bunch of people you will spend $1.3 Trillion extra on their pet projects, and 95% of everyone that their taxes will be cut (all this against a shrinking tax base), well when the mathematically challenged and politically credulous actually realise the promises are obviously mutually exclusive, there might well be a need for a national security force that's quite a bit harder than the peace corps.
You won't see this on CNN.
And would you really imagine that when someone seeking election with dubious intentions talks about a national security force, he would actually say "Yep, kiss goodbye to the constitution and miranda rights suckers" Why not simply say "expand the peace corps" if that is the plan?
Nope, when you've told one bunch of people you will spend $1.3 Trillion extra on their pet projects, and 95% of everyone that their taxes will be cut (all this against a shrinking tax base), well when the mathematically challenged and politically credulous actually realise the promises are obviously mutually exclusive, there might well be a need for a national security force that's quite a bit harder than the peace corps.
You won't see this on CNN.
Re: OBAMA WON!!!
Thisis the problem with American politics today.
I don't think Obama will be as bad as the right wing states. I don't think McCain would have been as bad as the left wing claimed.
The truth is that Obama will not get to implement a lot of his campaign promises. Some of them will be too expensive, given the current state of the economy, others won't happen because they were just campaign promises and all politicians are liars. And then he will accomplish some of his promises.
Now, I think that expansion of the public service corps is a good idea, especially since we are in a depression, it can provide training, experience, and money to American youths.
I don't think that reducing our military is a good thing, though. If you look at what's happened in the past few decades, we reduce our military after a war, only to find ourselves unprepared when the next war hits. We spend billions to expand our military, fight the war, then reduce the military, only to have to spend billions again the next time we need them. And we end up sending troops unprepared to war, something that costs us lives. We need to find a better use for the military during peacetime, something that will keep them prepared for war, but will also make them of value to the American public during peace. I don't have the answer to what that should be, though, as I keep getting 1984 images in my head.
I don't think Obama will be as bad as the right wing states. I don't think McCain would have been as bad as the left wing claimed.
The truth is that Obama will not get to implement a lot of his campaign promises. Some of them will be too expensive, given the current state of the economy, others won't happen because they were just campaign promises and all politicians are liars. And then he will accomplish some of his promises.
Now, I think that expansion of the public service corps is a good idea, especially since we are in a depression, it can provide training, experience, and money to American youths.
I don't think that reducing our military is a good thing, though. If you look at what's happened in the past few decades, we reduce our military after a war, only to find ourselves unprepared when the next war hits. We spend billions to expand our military, fight the war, then reduce the military, only to have to spend billions again the next time we need them. And we end up sending troops unprepared to war, something that costs us lives. We need to find a better use for the military during peacetime, something that will keep them prepared for war, but will also make them of value to the American public during peace. I don't have the answer to what that should be, though, as I keep getting 1984 images in my head.
X
Re: OBAMA WON!!!
The other problem I have with American politics, or at least the news media's reporting of politics, is the fact that the top story on the news website is a feature story telling Obama what he needs to know about owning a dog.
X
Re: OBAMA WON!!!
Well, sure, if you assume 'dubious intentions' you can read sinister subtext into many phrases taken out of context.
He did, extensively. The quoted phrase was a summing-up phrase (badly chosen, IMO, as a sop to conservatives who fear he won't be tough on national security).Why not simply say "expand the peace corps" if that is the plan?
Re: OBAMA WON!!!
Hey Stussy88, you were banned. Or have you conveniently forgotten?
Re: OBAMA WON!!!
No, I was totally banned, I just couldn't be bothered to go to the trouble of signing on from a new URL in another username and I thought the quality of debate, (or lets be honest, any debate) might be slightly better if someone was opposed to the Obamessiah.
Re: OBAMA WON!!!
He said
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
So imagine a secenario that requires the military/national guard on US soil, say an expanded LA riot scenario and the new President saying, nope, we don't need the 82nd airborne, send in the unarmed and defenceless peace corps?
The truth of this will come out when the new organisation is created. If they are essentially cleaning up roadsides etc (like say criminals doing community service) then it will be imposed servitude (itself a massive and disgraceful attack on, you know, freedom and personal choice), but if there are any weapons or powers of arrest, then my earlier claims chillingly stand.
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
So imagine a secenario that requires the military/national guard on US soil, say an expanded LA riot scenario and the new President saying, nope, we don't need the 82nd airborne, send in the unarmed and defenceless peace corps?
The truth of this will come out when the new organisation is created. If they are essentially cleaning up roadsides etc (like say criminals doing community service) then it will be imposed servitude (itself a massive and disgraceful attack on, you know, freedom and personal choice), but if there are any weapons or powers of arrest, then my earlier claims chillingly stand.