OBAMA: "We cannot continue to rely 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."

LINK

Everybody OK w/ this?

...

DOOMED TO REPEAT IT

And you know who is going to pay for it right?

A "CIVILIAN SECURITY FORCE" already exists. One of the LARGEST is LOCATED on the MILITARY BASE near my hometown, staffed by Ph.D.s and other SPECIALISTS with knowledge about different nations. They work with our embassies and consulates all over the world. Some of the FOLKS in this "CIVILIAN SECURITY FORCE" are actually my friends IRL...They feel that they are UNDERSTAFFED....having to travel long distances for extended periods of time and spending lots of time away from their familiies..

They are employed to assist Delta Force(if it exists) and SPECIAL FORCES...

ETA.."ELITE" SOLDIERS..upon retirement..are EMPLOYED by THIS "FORCE"...or GOVERNMENTAL DEPARTMENT..which they won't tell me the exact name of who they work for...

Thank you for nippin' that one in the bud, mimi!

Charlotte

Nipped what in the bud?

Is this group that Mimi is talking about just as POWERFUL, just as STRONG, just as WELL FUNDED as our military?

Obama's plan for a civilian security force refers to his plan to encourage voluntary service for your community and country.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/obamas_civilian_national_secur.html

He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.

Ask not what Obama can do for you...ask what you can do for Obama.

Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.
*********************************

True....but, it's not the red army. I heard that England proposed a civilian security force last year (before Obama mentioned it) but don't know if it ever got off the ground.
I assumed he got his idea from them.

The Peace Corp is not "a national security force."

And I don't know why we would need to remake it so that it could be just as STRONG, just as POWERFUL, just as WELL FUNDED as our military.

They are AN ESSENTIAL and INTEGRAL PART of the MILITARY...makes our MILITARY POWERFUL and STRONG...and ELITE...

They MAY be WELL-FUNDED..their OFFICES are well-equipped with all kinds of LUXURIES and HIGH-TECH EQUIPMENT as far as I can tell from inference...No one knows where they work or how to get onto their facility...

I can't see how the Peace Corps could be considered a SECURITY FORCE????

The people that I'm talking about actually work on NATIONAL SECURITY...

Mimi, he didn't say it was A PART of the military, he's said he wants to create ANOTHER "national security force" that is "AS STRONG, AS POWERFUL as WELLFUNDED"as the military (not just wellfunded).

OK..if you think so, Marsh...

Nipping what in the bud???

You don't seriously think that a group if PHd's, thinkers, etc should replace our current military do you?

This is the thinking that got us where we are now. Decreases in the military, showing the world that we're (the USA) a bunch of pansies that want peace not war facilitated the 1993 world trade center bombings, 9/11, etc.

This thinking is what makes the USA look weak to those that want to do harm to us. Thinking like this is what makes them (the terrorist) want to come after us again.

If anyone thinks that by decreasing our military forces is going to make this a better country, is going to make the extremest not come after us, on our soil AGAIN....they are sadly mistaken.

No one....and I mean NO ONE wants war but sometimes it necessary. If you don't stand up to the bully, the bully will never leave you alone.

OBAMA: "We cannot continue to rely 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."

Where would Obama get the money to fund this at the same level as the Pentagon?

What would its mission be?

Where would it get its authority?

I thought the 2nd Amendment already addressed this...

Leaving us defenseless is a very serious concern.

Hmmmm....let's see.....which would I feel safer knowing was protecting my country and her people......The Peace Corps or the Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard.

That's a REALLY hard choice but I think I'll take the LATTER...

Obama:



Who's going to decide 'WHO' will be asked to serve? And what if "I" don't want to serve...then what??

Kinda sounds like the DRAFT doesn't???

So not only is he going to TAKE YOUR MONEY (well-funded)....he's going to "asked you to serve"

PEOPLE....come on! Do you NOT see the danger in this kind of thinking??? Do you not see that Obama is a Socialist that borders on Marxism??

OMG....THIS GUY IS SCARY

Do people REALLY not see what this will do to this country??? DO they not see that by doing this things that OBAMA states in that message, it makes us sitting ducks....DEAD in the water??? It makes us DEFENSELESS....

We're JUST BEGGING for them to come after us!!

No. This is IN CONJUNCTION with the military.

NO. Not at all.

You KEEP believing that.... do you still believe in Santa Claus too???

He's already said that he's going to CUT MILITARY spending....

Exactly how will this be IN CONJUNCTION with the military when he has ALREADY said that he PLANS on MILITARY CUTS???

Why do you think that 3/4 of the MILITARY (per a Military Times poll, look it up) DOES NOT SUPPORT BARRACK OBAMA??????

They (The military) know exactly what KIND OF DANGER Barrack Obama is to the UNITED STATES MILITARY....

JoJo,

Mimi is a supporter of Obama. She trusts him. There's nothing you can say that will change that.

Please try not to get this thread locked.

......."and that means higher taxes".

But all the Obama supporters think that this doesn't apply to them

Last I heard his 'cut-off' was down to $150K from $250k....

Keep believing that you're in the "Safe Zone" and his tax increases aren't going to effect you.

Actually I'm in the group that will be taxed higher according to his plan.

I pay HIGH TAXES now...YUCK...

I'm used to THAT..

Marsh...I know Mimi is.

Don't worry, I'm not attacking Mimi or anyone else....just asking questions and stating my opinion, both in a polite way.

The personal attacks are what gets the threads locked down

I watched the snipped link first - and then I watched the entire speech (link to entire July 4th speech is located once you open the 'more info' button)

.... and now I am more confused about his meaning/intent.

I think the scariest comments have been Obama expressing his opinion about the flaws in the US constitution....
What fundamental flaw is he talking about?

The president will swear an oath of office that he/she will defend and protect the constitution !

Huh?

PLEASE, I'm sincere, explain to me WHY you would purposely vote for someone that YOU KNOW is going to take MORE of your MONEY.

Why would you vote for someone that wants to TAKE YOUR money and GIVE it to someone else??

I really, truly DO NOT get it...

Thanks JoJo.


Yes, that is another big concern of mine. How can he swear to protect something he thinks is fundamentaly flawed?

This is also a HUGE concern that I have too!

His comments about EVERYONE's 2nd ammendment rights really bother me.

Those on the LEFT think that those on the RIGHT are afraid of change....this is so far from the truth. I, like most others, WANT Change, just not OBAMA's idea of change...

From what I read (eg. here ), once you get past the hysteria and the Youtube clips, Obama's and McCain's plans for military size are not all that different.

There are differences on how they think the troops should be used (nation-building, etc), but that often changes with the reality on the ground anyway.

AGG

How about his attempts to destroy it?


As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama must demonstrate executive experience, but he remains strangely silent about his eight years (1994-2002) as a director of the Joyce Foundation, a billion dollar tax-exempt organization. He has one obvious reason: during his time as director, Joyce Foundation spent millions creating and supporting anti-gun organizations.

There is another, less known, reason.

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.

Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him to write for the review, later explaining that “sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium.” Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he “was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time.” Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce’s staffers “objected strenuously” to their being allowed to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an “‘agenda of balance’ that was inconsistent with the Symposium’s purpose.” Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review.The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.

The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:

“The effort is timely: a series of test cases - based on a new wave of scholarship, a recent decision by a federal Court of Appeals in Texas, and a revised Justice Department policy-are working their way through the courts. The litigants challenge the courts’ traditional reading of the Second Amendment as a protection of the states’ right to organize militia, asserting that the Amendment confers a much broader right for individuals to own guns. The United States Supreme Court is likely to resolve the debate within the next three to five years.”


The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms. The OSU connection also gave Joyce an academic money laundry. When it decided to buy an issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review, it had a cover. Joyce handed OSU $125,000 for that purpose; all the law review editors knew was that OSU’s Foundation granted them that breathtaking sum, and a helpful Prof. Cornell volunteered to organize the issue. (The review was later sufficiently embarassed to publish an open letter on the affair).

The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.

I believe in sharing with those less fortunate than I. I believe that I have been BLESSED and believe in giving back a portion of what I have been given.

I, in no way, believe that John McCain shares this CORE BELIEF of mine.

This woman shares my views, eloquently explaining my viewpoint.

"Bleeding Heart Liberal"

Mimi - a very commendable feeling. And you have the resources to act on your belief.

But there is a BIG difference between YOU deciding to share YOUR money with and the Goverment taking your money and giving to whomever THEY think needs it "more than you," perhaps even to some you might not want to contribute to if it were up to you.




Then I take you have not checked out the charitable giving of the McCain's and the Obama's.

The difference in who seems to share your belief is STARK, despite all the rhetoric of Obama. He remains committed to taking YOUR money to use for HIS "giving." He DOES NOT "give of his own resources" whereas the McCain's do. It would seem patently obvious who DOES share your belief and who has put it into action with their OWN resouces.

"JUST AS Powerful." Powerful as what, to use force to impose whatever THEIR agenda might be?

"JUST AS Strong." Yep. LOTS of "like-minded" individuals who can collectively impose their will regardless of any dissent or opposition.

"JUST AS well-funded." Yep. Chalk up another one for "balancing the budget" and NOT increasing taxes.

READ HIS LIPS. It's all out there for anyone willing to LISTEN.




From ONLY the "nasty" 1% of taxpayers, didn't you know that?

What's another cost of HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars annually compared to Obama's "VISION" for America?



Now THAT is a relevant and very good question. But Obama is, as he is with most things, remarkably SHORT on those nasty little "details" called "specifics."


Why from Obama, Pelosi, and Reid....naturally.

OPR using OPM to fund and promote THEIR Socialist agendas.

EGG ZAK LEE

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/20/military.defence

What fundamental flaw is he talking about?
**************************************

From the clip I saw, the fundamental flaw (in the constitution) he was talking about was the fact that when it was written, african americans were not considered american citizens, but slaves(property)w/ no civil rights.

Obama feels that you are selfish if you do not want to spread your "wealth" through higher taxes.



The U.S. is probably the most generous country in the world. Giving freely of ourselves is not enough for Obama. He wants MORE and he intends to take it.

Nia, if that is what Obaman "meant," then he is either woefully ignorant of American History (not an unusual possibility since he is a product of schools that have essentially stopped teaching History and replaced it with the "biased leanings of the teachers") OR he is deliberately trying to "play the RACE card" to whip up emotional support regardless of the FACTS.

Either way, Obama IS USING this as a Race Issue to further his political ambitions. Makes you wonder HOW the Emancipation Proclamation AND the Constitutional Amendment EVER passed the Congress AND the States for ratification with all thos "bad white people" controlling the voting.

The facts are that NOT all blacks were slaves even before the Civil War and the 13th Amendment. And that situation, where it DID exist, WAS already addressed by the Constitution in the form of Amendments, the SAME sort of way that WOMEN where given the right to VOTE so that all women COULD vote.

Obama is taking a position that does not examine at all the TIME in which the Constitution was written, nor does it take into consideration that we HAVE a way of "changing" things that DOES NOT involve the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench" in the manner in which they have DENIED any "right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to ANY unborn child.

REMARKABLY SIMILIAR, it seems to me, to the original idea that the STATES, individually, determined the "right" of slavery (but now it's "the woman" who determines abortion or life for the baby).


Anyway, here is some relevant reading if anyone is interesting in informing themselves of FACTS and not political "spin" to whip up the masses.


Question: What does the Constitution say about slavery?

Answer: The words "slave" or "slavery" do not exist in the Constitution. However, slavery is referred to in a couple of places. For one thing, there was the 3/5 Compromise where every 5 slaves counted as 3 people in terms of apportionment for the House of Representatives. Further, the government was given the power to restrict the slave trade. Finally, there was a section where it says that if people held to service or labor (slavery) in one state escape them must not be freed by the laws of another state.


Thirteeth Amendment to the Constitution

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

See following link for full article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

PRE SLICE AND DICELY!!!

Correct me if I am wrong but, don't we still have to pay taxes no matter who is in office? We have been paying taxes every since we were old enough to have an allowance and buy candy from the candy store. When we pay taxes what is that money used for? No matter who is in the office we will have to pay. The only certainties in life is death and taxes. The welfare and medicaid systems have been in play for quite some time. The only difference to me would be what the majorities of the taxes collected will go towards. You can either choose for them to go towards the war or towards the medicaid and welfare systems. The president is not the only person who makes a law, if the house is it against guess what? It has to go back to the drawing board. It wasn't one person that determined Roe vs Wade. The only person in recent events that called executive power is Bush. He did that to start a war not only the house was against but also the United Nations. Just something to ponder.

DIG, just a general question if I may, in response to your last post.

Do you REALLY believe this?

Anyway, here is some relevant reading if anyone is interesting in informing themselves of FACTS and not political "spin" to whip up the masses.

************************************

FH,
I honestly don't know the entire context or what type of 'spin' was trying to be applied to the u-tube clip I watched.
But,to me,it didn't sound like he was trying to play the race card or making up an excuse to not uphold the constitution.
I agree that he is very ambitious and I understand your issues w/ him, FH... ....I just beleive the 'spin' comes from both sides and some of it is absurd. The internet makes diciphering the BS and intended implications more of a game than ever.

What part are you referring to? What do you think FH? Don't we all pay taxes? The governing bodies not just one person determines what those monies go toward. Look at the bailout plan. Bush had to take that to the house. All though he is president he didn't get the plan approved until the house and him all came to an agreement. I am wrong on that? I asked to be corrected if I was wrong. What part is my opinion incorrect?

I don't believe the Senator states it this way BUT I totally agree with this.

I have FAITH in our governmental system to apportion the funds where needed....as long as we have PROGRAMS in place that are set up to help those in NEED.

WOW.

People are selfish to actually want to keep more of what they earn rather than see it TAKEN and GIVEN to those that refuse to get off their lazy asses.

WOW.

There are HARD WORKERS who have recently been laid off after working their lifetimes at companies.

There are LAZY PEOPLE but there definitely is a WORKING POOR in AMERICA and children who are dying from starvation because of irresponsible parents for whatever reason...

Increase in Working Poor

Pretty nice job emphasizing the exact FEAR that this partisan post/"newstory" was specifically designed to illicit. Purposefully conjuring up images of a civilian force made up of Obama supporters (blacks, the poor, the disenfranchised) armed to the teeth (like our military) with money pouring out on all sides (like our pentagon). Only a Republican spin team can make an expanded peace corp program appear so grave and counter-revolutionary. It's quite shameful to turn the promotion of activism, into fear.

Independents aren't buying FEAR anymore.

As far as increased taxes. I'd rather pay an extra dollar today than that same dollar plus interest tomorrow. The last 8 years, the Republican admintration has TAXED my FUTURE EARNINGS and redistributed to whomever they choose (bombing and then rebuidling Iraq, to Wall Street, to Corporate Greed, to the Medical and Medical Insurance Cartels, etc.). Not to mention...when you tax FUTURE EARNINGS (deficit spending) you quelch capitalism. 10, 15, 20 years from now I hope to make more money than I do today but it's quite the disincentive to consider I'll be taxed more THEN because Bush spent too much AND TAXED TO LITTLE money in 2000-2008. IMO, the sooner the generation and people that got the benefit of the Republican spending spree start paying higher taxes (by a few percent) the better. Again...you can try FEAR and try to spin the increase as "poor people be afraid...if you tax rich people more they will fire you" won't work. They've either already been fired or already fear they will be regardless of the election. Independents are now MORE scared for our country and their childrens' futures and see Obama as a transformational figure that can RESTORE the American Dream versus a party bent on destroying it all but for a few.

Mr. Wondering

Exactly...as Mr. Wondering says...

YES...this is so necessary in this country.

This country, during this depressing time, is NEEDFUL of his message of HOPE and INSPIRATION!!

Medc please don't start being judgmental. I don't want another thread to get locked. Lots of us are replying to post without being disrespectful. You can talk straight and not be harsh or in attack mode to get your point across. While they do have people that mooch off the system. Not all people do. They have people that have jobs and still can't make ends meet. They also have people who are trying to find work and can't. What about these people? We all have to pay taxes. There are no ifs, and, or buts about it. Either party will have to raise taxes to try to fix the problem. The only differences is who will get effected the most?

YOU are the one being judgmental. Anyone that would use the judgmental term "selfish" to describe a person that wants to keep what they earn is being judgmental.

Try as you might DIG, you will not silence me.

But yet, WE (Mimi, myself and most democrats) ARE realists. We know Obama isn't the messiah. We know there will be screw ups and misguided efforts to fix things which may make some other things worse. That's our government. Obama isn't ushering in Utopia. We are merely encouraged that SOMEONE finally wants to try. The status quo, McBush, simply doesn't work (unless you are a CEO, work for the health insurance racket, deal legal drugs or control oil).

Mr. Wondering

**edit**

The Kristallnacht™ is coming.

I agree that SELFISH is a poor choice of words...

I'm speaking for MYSELF in not wanting to be SELFISH...

And wanting to give back to PROGRAMS that I believe in...

I support an administration that will use tax money to give to those IN NEED...not in further support of the wealthy..

Folks, we are unlocking this thread. Please keep your posts respectful and on topic. Stay away from name calling and telling other posters how to post. Thanks.

Thanks, Rivera!


Mimi, I have worked for both the Dept. of Public Welfare (now Human Resources) in my state and IRS.

Having the government distribute our money will cost much, much more than the amount going directly to those who truly need it.

Even with all the rules and regulations of such programs, the system can quickly become over-burdened with fraud. The crooks figure out exactly what they have to do in order to beat the system. That means the government must spend more and more to police these programs...not to mention the money going to criminals that the government employees are unable to detect in time.

There was an article about fraudulent tax refunds a few days ago. Here's one link to the story: Fraudulent Tax Refunds

The government agencies are definitely NOT efficient, Mimi. T
have seen a LOT of waste going on during my time with both agencies.

Oh...and I think the working poor would rather have a JOB than a hand-out, and maybe a little leniency or help in catching up with their legitimate bills.

Obama seems to be promising much more than he will likely be able to deliver. I am wondering what the public reaction is going to be when the promised checks do NOT arrive in the mail.

Oh...and in regard to the 2nd Amendment, it was and is meant for ordinary citizens to have the ability to arm themselves as needed.

Remember that the United States was formed as a result of the colonial settlers rebelling against TYRANNY and unfair taxation. The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to ensure that, should a dictator or opressive ruler take control of our government, the people will be NOT be left without means of self-defense.

You're a generous person....I understand that, so am I. BUT I would rather, and I do, give MY MONEY to WHO I WANT TO give it to, not to who the federal government thinks I should.

You are blessed because of your hard work....GOD helps those that help themselves....

I'm all for helping those that are less fortunate, the elderly (more than ANYONE) and the truly indegent. I AM NOT for helping those that ARE LAZY....those that WELFARE is a WAY OF LIFE....those that have BABY AFTER BABY AFTER BABY while on WELFARE...those that are IN THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY.

ME EITHER..I'm not for helping these people.

The system has been devised....to keep this from occurring..you cannot get assistance without working a certain number of hours a week and/or going to school...

Lady clueless u are not. Thanks. Good responses.

I always find it rather amusing that folks will say how we need to take care of the poor in this country and meanwhile its been months since I have had a fluent English speaker in a McDonalds. Well in Texas anyway.

Perhaps we should open the borders wider for Mexican workers (does anyone doubt they work harder than the average white or black American an) so we can tax their wages to pay for those that do not want to work and stay on welfare. (sarcasm) In other words - jobs can be found if one looks for them.

On the Civilian Sec Force - where did this come from? Good grief - I understand that the Military has limited power on US soil but are we talking about a Brownshirt outfit? I thought we had constables, police and the Texas Rangers. I think Barak sometimes has no idea what he is talking about and seems to not understand the impact of his comments.

Currently there are somewhere near 40% of the workers or 40 million ppl that do not pay one dollar in tax. The tax cut envision by the Dems could give $500 to $1000 to those folks. Now seriously is that amount going to help those in that income level. Money will never solve it. Education while making sure the basic needs are taking care of will pull the person out of poverty. It is the only path. Thats the secret to end poverty.

They need to have tools and the knowledge to provide for themselves. Giving them a small cheque while taxing folks that can provide a job afterwards makes no sense to me. Govt can make an investment once to these ppl and then it is up to them.

I am SO SORRY....But you are WRONG, SOOOOOO VERY WRONG!!!

The system is SERIOUSLY FLAWED....what you are saying is the way the welfare/social services USED to be, a VERY LONG TIME AGO, but not any more.

WIC, food stamps, Medicaid, Aid to Dependant Children, etc, is VERY Easy to get for most.

Those that TRULY need the HELP....ie the ELDERLY and truly indegent are the ONE's THAT DO NOT GET IT.

If you are elderly and need MEDICAID because you cannot afford a 2ndary insurance to your Medicare, you can't pay for your RX's but you have property then the STATE will not give you HELP. They want you to SELL everything, use that money then they will help you, but of course, then you don't have a home.

If you are indegent and have NO HOME they won't help you because you do not have a residence.

NOW TELL ME that those THAT TRULY need help are getting it.

THEY ARE NOT....

I have worked in the Medical and Social Services field for 20 years....those that CAN GET OFF THAT ARSES and work but don't GET EVERYTHING....those that are not ABLE DO NOT GET ANYTHING...

I'm SORRY....but you keep thinking that your money is going to help those TRULY in NEED....Keep thinking that SPREAD the WEALTH is going to make things better....IT'S NOT.

WELFARE REFORM is what will make things BETTER....NOT SPREAD the WEALTH.

EXACTLY.....

I was in 3 places today alone that had 'HELP WANTED' signs up. But that's beneath most of those sitting on WELFARE. It's not enough money. Well, if one jobs not enough....GET TWO.

Been there, done that, have the tshirt.

why work when you can sit home and collect a check, food stamps and soon to be at your door...healthcare. The SLOWEST time in my old police district was...RUSH HOUR. About 11am all the drunk losers woke up and started causing trouble till 3 am....funny how they would find money for the bar but not food, diapers or healthcare.

Have you all heard this yet?

Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry

Or this?

Obama told the editors that his pol...tant costs of his cap-and-trade policy

Not really Mimi. There are some BIG holes in the system.

For example, there seems to be a large percentage of welfare recipients who are single females that get pregnant intentionally as a means to gain Welfare (way of lifers). They repeat the pregnancies once the children become school age where they would have otherwise been required to get a job. And unfortunately, those very children (if female) follow their mother's footsteps. So its generational.

This gross misuse of our tax dollars has been going on FOR YEARS.

The above REAL world example is just ONE of many.

Jo

I guess we have a different MINDSET.

I have worked in the medical field myself for over 25 years and don't see it the way that you do. There are those that do abuse the welfare system but there are certainly many who do not. There are those on welfare that do work but it still is not enough. There's the problem with the deadbeat dads and some moms..who are the crackheads and winos..who are not helping these women with the care of their children while they work two jobs and can not provide suitable childcare..I could go on and on...there are many who receive assistance that are not shiftless and lazy. I agree, though, that we need to continue to take a look at the system and refine it.

I totally agree with you about the need for care and assistance to the ELDERLY and now THE WAR VETERANS.

I have spent my adulthood in providing CARE for all of these folks....but SEE it much differently than you do JoJo...

I think it's about us having a different MINDSET about it..and that's COOL with me...

We are all different..

You say.."it seems". Where is the proof of this? And when they get the WELFARE, what do they GET? Is it enough to actually feed and clothe these babies? I'm not saying that the amount should be increased. I'm saying that it is JUST ASSISTANCE..not really enough and certainly they should be required to work in order to obtain assistance. That definitely is the requirement NOW.

In the inner cities...places like Philadelphia. The proof is on the streets. Moms with kids from 5 different dads...collecting welfare, hanging out in bars, doing drugs, etc.

Jo:

Welfare Reform occurred during the Clinton Presidency and Obama has said that he supported this system.

Welfare Reform

There are working women...not on welfare..with kids with 5 different dads..there'a a MORAL CRISIS in this society...

Actually, Mimi, When former President Bill Clinton ...ama called it "disturbing."

This is getting kinda fun...debunking all this Republican rhetoric.

When Obama referred to "bankrupting THEM", the them he was referring to was any company that choose to build a NEW plant using all coal power. He was NOT referring to bankrupting the coal industry. There are still plenty of plants, here and around the world currently to keep the coal industry alive and viable for years to come albeit coal plants will be and SHOULD be economically encouraged to invest in clean-coal technology.

It's just that Obama right wants to see NEW PLANTS economically encouraged to invest in alternative sources of energy sooner, rather than later...when it's too late.

Ironically, both parties for YEARS have been promising us they were going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil AND reduce our carbon emissions.

For example...this is from the 2008 Republican Party Platform:


I'm just glad to see SOMEBODY [Obama} actually talking about how he'd specifically envision pursuing such American value and belief (stewardship) as opposed to the "all promise...no action" Republicans on this very issue.

Mr. Wondering

As MEDC responded, it is all over Mimi. You'd have to be living as a mushroom not to know/see it.

For me alone, I happen to know of 6 instances where the mothers intentionally get pregnant as soon as their youngest turns school age, when Welfare requires them to get a job. These same women's children (some now young adults) are following their mother's lead and getting pregnant so they won't have to work.

They receive:

- Subsidized housing assistance, nearly 100% paid (the more children, the more you get)
- Food stamps
- Welfare checks for each child (welfare attempts to collect CS from the BIO-fathers, if known)
- Free medical and dental

Also as MEDC mentioned, these women spend their evenings in bars and sleep till noon. Again, they are not required to work until their youngest is school age.

There was no REAL Welfare reform, Mimi. It was all on paper, there was no teeth.

Jo

Maybe a REQUIREMENT in your state but NOT in MINE....

You know, I was just reading that and noticed that it is left up to the states.

I thought it was a NATIONAL requirement.

I think it should be.

Jo:

I can name many women where that's not the case.

There are many systems that are abused by some..even MANY.. but definitely not ALL.

What about our tax system that is abused by white collar business owners?

Its not in WA State, nor is it in California according to my sister who complains about the Misuse of Welfare (ABUSE OF OUR TAXES) all the time too.

ITS A GLARING PROBLEM.

The WEALTHY abuses taxes as well.

Yes, you are right there are. I nor Medic is implying that every mother with 5 kids from 5 different fathers are on welfare. The point is that there are a LOT of those that are and the reason they are is because IT'S EASY....its FREE MONEY.

Yes, we have a MORAL CRISIS in this country...and what DO WE DO ABOUT THAT?? We're taken GOD out of the schools (I'm sure that some will have something to say about that comment...I'd name names but the Mod's will get me ), sex and filthy lauguage is plastered on daytime and primetime TV and in most movies for our Children to see.

And Sex SELLS! We have controlls on our TV's and Internet but I can't control what my kids see away from home .....

In one of the debates, Obama stated that this was one of his errors and that there has been a major change in his thinking about this...

In response to this same question, McCain did not answer the question directly about past errors.

How can you make the assumption that people on welfare are doing it for the money then? They could be doing for the same reasons that women who are not on welfare have those children..because of the MORAL CRISIS or other reasons..not to GET MONEY. There's NO MONEY obtained from WELFARE...it's a drop in the bucket what they get.. Unfortunately, many of these women obtain MORE MONEY illegally.

Bahahahahahahahahhaha....... I'm SOOOOOOOO glad you cleared that up.

He's ONLY going to BANKRUPT NEW COMPANIES.....well that makes it ALL RIGHT THEN. Wooooo...I feel better and I'm SURE that all the people in PA, WV and other states that produce and use coal feel better TOO....

Mr. W, I wish you really would debunk the issues that have been brought up, especially the earlier ones on this thread. I don't like feeling the way I do about what may be our next President.

W/ regards to this new revelation about how Obama wants to use price signals to change the behavior of the coal industry, I wonder how the folks who rely on this industry to earn a living will feel about this.

Also, any idea how bankrupting people/companies “will also generate billions of dollars” so we can "invest in other alternative energy approaches"?

In many cases of welfare abuse, there is actually an employed man living in the rent-subsidized apartment...unreported, of course. He is not around should a welfare case worker pay a vist. The problem is..welfare employees are hampered by rules and regulations and cannot refer any suspected abuse case to the investigators UNLESS someone reports the abuse.

There are many welfare recipients who work "under the table"...and shame on those who hire them, because they are abusing the tax system by not paying employer taxes.

One example of income tax fraud is when someone uses the child and the child's SS# to claim the child as a dependent and for Earned Income Credit. IMHO, there should be some sort of coordination between the tax system and the welfare rolls. If someone is claiming a child as a dependent on taxes, then that person's income needs to be figured into the calculations for welfare benefits.

When a minor girl has a child, her parents' income is not included in the calculations for welfare assistance, but you can bet your boots that Mom and Dad are likely claiming that child on their income tax return.

When I was working for the welfare department, I wished I had a nickel for everytime a mother told me that she had no idea where her child's father was...only to come up pregnant a few months later, naming the same man as the father of a new baby. When questioned, the answer was, invariably, "Well, he comes by to see the baby sometimes." :RollieEyes:

Oh...and Mimi, about 35 years ago, an article in Reader's Digest calculated the value of welfare benefits for a single mother of 2 in Mississippi. The value of all benefits (welfare check, Food Stamps, subsidized rent, Medicaid) was just barely over $15,000/yr. At that time, I was working for the welfare department (considered to be a very good job at that time), and my yearly salary was just under $10,000. Seems to me that something was wrong with that picture!

Seems like he makes a lot of mistakes....

Hmmmmmmm....are they REALLY mistakes or is it just telling you and the rest of on the LEFT what he THINKS you want to hear today then changing it again when he thinks you want to hear something different???

Mimi,

They do receive Welfare checks for each child. So they do receive $$.

For these women I'm speaking of, I've heard their conversations about needing to get pregnant again soon so they won't have to get a job.

They have made it a way of life, and it's generational now. Their mothers modeled it for them, so they were taught this is what you do to make a livelihood for yourself.

They are getting a free ride on our taxes:

Their housing is free.
Their food is free.
They get $$ for each child.
Their medical and dental is free.
Even their Utils are subsudized by Welfare.

I'm not assuming anything. I honesty do not care how many children others have nor whether they are by the same father or not. I do care if I have to pay for it though.

Whether its a moral issue or not, is not the point. The POINT is whether you have morals or not, DO NOT EXPECT someone else to pay for your decisions in life.

Jo:

I agree that it is wrong and unfortunate what is happening for the women that you are talking about.

But you cannot make the assumption that is true for ALL women receiving governmental assistance.

I was saying that the money that is received is not very much.

IMO, there is just as much or more abuse by wealthy business who use tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

There are cases of families who pull themselves out of welfare with entire families of college graduates raised within the welfare system.

Marsh...he doesn't care.....just like the LEFT doesn't care about the millions that will lose their jobs if Obama gets his way with Socialized Medicine.

If it doesn't effect them personally....THE LEFT DOESN'T CARE.

Study Says Coal Plant Pollution Kills 30,000 A Year

I would say being a responsible member of the community in which you inhabit would be pretty important otherwise you won't be in business for long.

Want2Stay

I don't see it the way that y'all do...just don't.

I feel sorry for those people that don't know any better...anytime I hear of stories like that..I feel sad for them..

Also, Mr. W,

OBAMA: Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

Please tell me how this benefit our economy.

No one here is saying "everyone", Mimi.

What I'm trying to explain to you, which you seem somewhat in the dark about, is there are HOLES in our Welfare system. BIG glaring Welfare-wasn't-intended-for-this holes. And this is one of them that has been around FOR YEARS.

And no one here is asking you to solve them, Mimi. Just because someone isn't aware of something, doesn't mean it's not happening.

Here's what you wrote and WHY I responded:


Not true, you can in MANY STATES.

Jo

They should be equally concerned with both the Republican and Democratic Platforms regarding reducing carbon emissions (though I'm guessing that WV historically goes Republican because they KNOW the Republicans make such "commitments" with a nod and a wink). I guess the coal industry RELIES on Republican lies. We have LOTS of coal and it will still be used, just not in new plants where alternative AMERICAN sources of energy are going to be promoted and used. Sources and technology CREATED, ENGINEERED and MANUFACTURED by OTHER industries (i.e. - JOBS). Unlike other manufacturing jobs that have been sent overseas...hopefully the democrats will encourage and promote effective incentives to keep these NEW jobs in America (unlike the Republicans).



This is easy. No one will actually BE bankrupted because they won't utilize coal in the first place...which was his point.

Mr. Wondering

I'll take a shot. If you don't mind providing context of where you found the quote.

Want2Stay

I betcha the benefits are THE SAME..35 years later...

I have not denied that there are HOLES in the WELFARE SYSTEM. There are also HOLES in other governmental systems as well.

I'm glad to know that you are not assuming that ALL are not being ABUSIVE and that it is NECESSARY for many.

What about TAX ADVANTAGES for the RICH?

What do have to say about that?

I doubt very much that folks will care much about carbon emissions if they can't put food on the table or pay their bills.


OBAMA: "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches."


Ok, how will nonexistent coal plants "generate billions of dollars"?

And how many people a year does car emmissions kill..... are we going to start shutting down, bankrupting Auto plants TOO??

There's a LONG LIST of industries that supposedly KILL people....ARE YOU GOING TO SHUT THEM ALL DOWN, BANKRUPT them all. Something tells me that the answer is YES!!

To a large extent, we already have socialized medicine today.

The military, state, and federal employee's all enjoy single-payer health benefits and most consider it a wonderful essential perk of the job.

The uninsured get "free" emergency room care.

Medicaid operates at a 3% overhead rate.

Welfare moms get state funded healthcare though it's coverage is wholly inadequate in most states.

Yet...we still have the most expensive health care system in the world with only marginally rated effectiveness.



Precisely who would lose their jobs if we had some more single-payer medicine?


Mr. Wondering

Mimi????

Did you write this regarding Welfare????



And now you know this is untrue, right? Because in MANY States this is and has been happening for DECADES.

Tax advantages are a lot different than handouts. A reduction in what is PAID is far better than some loser that contributes NOTHING to society except for more mouths to feed, more healthcare to GIVE away, more welfare to pay, more crime on the street...etc.

VERY FEW people actually NEED welfare. They CHOOSE it instead. But money is always there for drugs and booze.

I've seen it with my own eyes.

Go back a few posts. I left a link in one of my posts.

I'm checking out for the night.

Have a good one, everyone.

and BTW, healthcare programs like CHIP provide MORE benefits than an employer plan. Something for nothing...the motto of the democrats.

I wonder who, besides TAX LAWYERS will reap a lot of profits in the new Obamanation. Oh yeah...baby killers.

That's easy too. You see...they are TWO separate statements that someone is attempting to link together to create the desired result.

The NEW PLANT...will invest in alternative energy instead of coal because they will be aware, AFOREFRONT, that IF they chose coal it would bankrupt them.

The OLD coal plants that already exist will generate the "billions of dollars" as they continue to emit carbon. They will finally be motivated to seriously invest in emission reducing technology and, eventually, when alternative sources become more economically feasible...shut down and convert to such alternatives.

Coal industry may lose (though they will be exporting to the thousands of new coal plants in China for years to come which will actually HELP reduce the trade deficit)... other industries will gain. In the end....we all win.

Mr. Wondering

If you wanto to work the system in Texas, I'll lay it out for you.

Apply for welfare.
The state sends you a list of people who are hiring for jobs.
Show up at the place for a application, make sure you do everything you can to give the manager the impression your not interested in working.
If possible dress down, do NOT dress appropriately.
Get the application, DO NOT FILL IT OUT AT THE STORE IF POSSIBLE.
Get the manager to sign your government form stating that you did apply.
If you couldnt get a signature without turning in the application, give the manager a chip on your shoulder.
DO NOT FILL OUT the application once you leave, remember the goal was just to get a signature saying you applied for the job.

This is still being done on a daily basis here. We now REFUSE to sign the government form until we get the job application completed.

And just a hint, if you REALLY want to make sure you don't get hired at a retail job, you need to get caught shoplifting and prosecuted and convicted.

Alot of companies including the one i work for have a policy that if you have been convicted of stealing, your not eligible to work with us.

*** I almost forgot, don't take the chip on your shoulder thing too far, you might want to apply there again in the future.

Not even close....


While the military may have 'free' health insurance, STATE and FEDERAL employee's DO NOT. Both have choices as to WHO there insurance carrier will be where the military does not.

I just worked an "Open Season/Health Insurance Fair" for Federal employees at a Naval base in my state. There were 12 other insurance carriers there that the Federal Employees could chose from. Aetna, BCBS, Mailhandlers benefit plan, GEHA, etc..... All private health insurance carriers....

Wrong AGAIN....that 'free' ER care that the 'unisured' is getting is being PAID FOR by YOU AND ME and everyone else that pays for their health insurance coverage



You're kidding me RIGHT??? "Welfare mothers" get the SAME care, same doctors, same Hospitals that you and I do. In fact, MEDICAID pays for MORE things then my private Health insurance does and HAS NO DEDUCTIBLE or co-pays


And the BEST!! But I'd LOVE TO KNOW why YOU THINK that its expensive.


Every single person that is now employeed by a Health Care company. From claim processers, to CSR to nurses and doctors. Millions of people.

My thing is..there ARE those that ABUSE the system and there are those that do not.

I NEVER said that the system is foolproof.

I was IN ERROR about what's true in MY STATE being TRUE in others..

Giving instances of it's flaws or weaknesses is not gonna make me disagree in principle with there being a welfare system in this country.

I agree with the NEED for GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE and you guys don't. I don't think I'm the sole person in America in agreement with it...although I'm more of a LONE WOLF here for some reason.

I think that's kinda weird but...

Anyways..

It is what it is.

Although the welfare system IS abused (and no candidate SUPPORTS abuse of welfare) it is interesting to note how much Clinton's 1996 Welfare Reform actually reduced the welfare roles.

[the way I read Obama's 1996/1997 criticism of the Clinton plan is that he thought Clinton compromised to much with the Republican Congress...he changed his mind AFTER the numbers came in showing it was effective. In other words, the fact that history showed welfare to work programs effectively reduced the welfare roles pleased him. That should be encouraging to those that FEAR an Obamanation welfare state]




Mr. Wondering

I'm always in awe at how the LEFT can spin things to make them SEEM like the right thing to do.

I thought that the WHOLE POINT of doing away with Coal Powered plants was because of carbon emmisions. IF THAT's the truth, then shipping the coal to China as you state, just puts the carbon emmissions over there RIGHT??

I thought the LEFTs issues with the environment wasn't just about the US's emissions but the worlds???

If thats true then your statement DOESN'T HOLD WATER....as it wouldn't matter where the coal was being used, it's still being used right???


Is that right??? Using coal, as the LEFT says, no matter where in the world it is used is still putting out carbon emmissions so if you really CARED about the ENVIRONMENT that wouldn't even have been a suggestion on your part...

Where in the world did you get that? I never wrote anything about not advocating Government Assistance programs, Mimi.

Is your world full of nothing but absolutes, because I wrote "there are HOLES" in responding to your statement that our Gov't Assistance had failsafe's to prevent misuse (holes), which it doesn't:


For the record: I am not against Gov't Assitance programs, but I am FOR them needing profound improvements, aka an overhaul.

Jo

Mimi....that's not true. I AGREE totally with you that there is a need for GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE. I agree that there are those out there that NEED GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.

What I do not agree with is who does and who doesn't need GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.

Welfare was set up during the depression as a HAND UP not a HAND OUT and there are a majority of people out there who are using GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE as a HAND OUT, A WAY OF LIFE.

Instead of letting these people stay on assistance programs year after year after year, making it a way of life, they should be made to educate themselves if they want, with help from the government or get a job, whichever they prefer. I would rather pay for someone to take classes at the local college to better themselves and then get a job, then to pay for their way in life.

EVERYONE that is not ELDERLY or DISABLED should be given a time frame as to when they will NO LONGER be supported by YOU AND ME.

Wow...an admission.

If welfare mothers get the SAME care, same doctors, same Hospitals that you and I get and, if fact, get MORE things than even private health insurance provides with no deductibles or copays than you and I...

THEN....

What is wrong with me wanting that for myself?

Employees in the private health insurance protection racket losing their jobs is of little concern to me. They are merely skimming off the top like middlemen adding about 30% to the total cost of healthcare in this country. Their idea of reducing costs with efficiencies means delaying and denying health coverage. Profitering off the fear (of bankruptcy) and sicknesses of others is immoral and unethical.

HMO's are the bane of the health care industry. Where they exist in large numbers...private hospitals and private doctors offices will gladly and expediently fill in the gaps. It's really only the middlemen...private insurers and their employees that would be left in the cold. As you said, I could get the same care, the same doctors, the same hospitals whether I pay private health insurance or like, welfare moms, rely on a single-payer system.

I say...to heck with the middleman.

btw...this ISN'T Obama's position. Just mine. The insurance industries payola runs too deep into both the republican party and the democratic party for much to likely change very soon. However, I imagine there will come a point in time (these economic times MAY be such time)...where too many individuals don't have health insurance that a single-payer system will likely become the only viable alternative. Right now the health industry, as a whole, makes enormous profits despite having to pass through the cost of caring for the uninsured to those that actually are insured. It's private socialism. The point of reckoning will occur when the number of insured can no longer sustain that cost. What then????

Mr. Wondering

Its the definition of wealthy that scares me.

But I'll get back to the subject of this thread, the civilian security force.

We don't need it. We've been doing just fine with what we have.

We have county,city,state agencies to do that.
Police, Sheriffs, Marshalls, FBI, DHS, State Troopers, State Marshalls, State and National Guardsmen.

I am concerned that a military organization with the word "civilian" in its formal name could be argued doesn't violate the Posse Comitatus Act.

This "Civilian organization" once its formed could over time have its "mission" changed to do things it was never intended to do, while having the same weapons and training as our military.

Mimi... theres a reason you separate the military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the Civil defense Force becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people

Sorry to have misinterpreted you, Jo.


I wish..


OK. Got it.

What EXACLY is that an admission of?? That if you're a LAZY ***edit*** drain on society that the LIBERAL LEFT doesnt see anything wrong with it and want's the same thing for themselves at the sacrifice of ANYONE in their way....including anyone that works in that industry???

You should have said something, I would have admitted to that earlier.


****edit**** of the health insurance industry aren't you?? I bet you also scream and complain about how much the oil companies make without any thought to how much they pay in taxes....DON'T YOU??

Here's a thought...while you wait for your boy wonder to make your life wonderful, go apply for MEDICAID so that you ALSO can have all the benefits that they have. I'm sure with the way the MEDICAID system is now, you could probably fib your way through and get coverage. Then you'd no longer be able to complain about what YOU have to pay in insurance premiums.

No worries and thanks Mims. I apologize too if I read mean or impatient.

Have a fine evening.

:pumkin:

So sorry to have misinterpreted you, too, JoJo..

You and I are EXACTLY on the same page..

And the system HERE in MY STATE is exactly as you have spelled out..I thought it was likewise in every state..

But knowledge about government programs is evidently NOT my area of expertise....

Jo... can you rephrase your last post just a little so Revera doesn't come in and slap a padlock on it?

I know we're all passionate about the election, just askin nicely, I can't make you cuz we all equal

Again...these "corps" (such as Americorp and the Peace Corps) are NOT getting the "same weapons and training as our military". They are NOT civilian MILITARY operations (though the snipet, when intentionally taken out of context attempts to imply it). They will be carrying shovels, hammers, and saws...not guns. They are altruistic organizations that have been supported by republican and democrat adminstrations for years. Obama just wants to expand them.

We enhance our "NATIONAL DEFENSE" through the diplomacy and good will generated by these organizations in our country and abroad.

Service is such volunteer organizations is beneficial to the minds of those who undertake to "enlist" as well. For years now, there has been competition to get these volunteer slots.

Everyone should be skeptical of everything you read just prior to an election. Read carefully and between the lines. This snipet is obviously being spread just days before the election to illicit FEAR because Karl Rove (and Reagan way before him) proved that FEAR, as a motivator, works very efficiently on the electorate.

Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be working this time around.

Mr. Wondering

Which "Jo" Dude? JoJo or me?

And if me, where? I've been a good little TOS-compliant poster.

Good job on keeping it respectful and civilized. Carry on!

***edit***

Ummm...I didn't read it, I was watching Barak's speeches trying to make up my mind for sure.

JoJo [in black] wrote:

What EXACLY is that an admission of?? That if you're a LAZY ***edit*** drain on society that the LIBERAL LEFT doesnt see anything wrong with it and want's the same thing for themselves at the sacrifice of ANYONE in their way....including anyone that works in that industry???

I'll pay for it. I'll pay taxes and instead of paying the immoral health insurance industry that's skimming 30% off the top AND making me cover the cost of the uninsured (and taking 30% of that too) for coverage that may or may not cover me should I actually get sick (because they are legally mandated to maximize shareholder profits and thus motivated to deny me coverage or find ANY means to get my sick butt off their client list) all because I fear that IF I get do get really sick I would otherwise lose my life savings (which is merely the paying of protection money) I'll be paying the government's insurance agency to process my medical care payments. I'll get the "same care, same doctors, same hospitals" without deductibles or copays (even though I wouldn't mind SOME copays and deductibles) without the 30% middleman. As a bonus...I'll get an elected official to decide whether I truly need a procedure or not instead of some profit driven promotion seeking corporate schmuck


You should have said something, I would have admitted to that earlier.


****edit**** of the health insurance industry aren't you?? I bet you also scream and complain about how much the oil companies make without any thought to how much they pay in taxes....DON'T YOU??

If you say so. I've never received any actual medical care from the medical insurance cartel (HMO's differ...but the doctors and nurses can surely retain their jobs as only the insurance portion of the business truly needs eliminated). They just take my money and I've never come close to needing anywhere near the amount of money I've paid into their system. Health insurance is a zero-added benefit to health care. It's USURY (over-profiting on the use of money) plain and simple and usury is unbiblical, unethical, illegal and immoral.

As far as the oil industry. I wouldn't have supported it's consolidation years ago. The lack of real competition in the industry begets scrutiny. They make more money than many countries and like public utilities need some real oversight. I don't begrudge profits, only illegal profiteering and manipulations of markets which, no doubt occur. If they can get away with it...they will. Corporations have no duty or soul. Maximize profits is their only concern. If they can cheat and not get caught...they will



Here's a thought...while you wait for your boy wonder to make your life wonderful, go apply for MEDICAID so that you ALSO can have all the benefits that they have. I'm sure with the way the MEDICAID system is now, you could probably fib your way through and get coverage. Then you'd no longer be able to complain about what YOU have to pay in insurance premiums.

No thank you. For now I'll just have to keep paying my protection money to the Blue Cross Blue Shield mafia. Fortunately, here in Michigan we still have an insurance provider of last resort. It's expensive but as individuals with pre-existing conditions, we can't be rated out of such policy [but we can't move out of state].

edited to add: my last point. The health insurance racket is BAD for capitalism because people make important decisions about their jobs based solely upon the ability to obtain OR retain health insurance coverage. With single payer health insurance people would be free to work whereever they want. Taking risks would be more conceivable if everyone had health coverage. Innovation and invention would result. More people would be working in jobs they LOVE versus being chained to the corporation or agency that pays their health insurance that they otherwise could never afford. Finally, people could reliably retire on their savings as they could more easily predict their future non-medical needs (thus opening up positions for younger people to advance)

[quote=RMX} Ummm...I didn't read it, I was watching Barak's speeches trying to make up my mind for sure. [/quote]


Then I encourage you to watch the ENTIRE speech instead of the snippet that was posted at the top of this thread as you clearly inferred what was pathetically and politically implied (that these were scary organizations Obama intended to outfit with guns/weapons that could and would supplement our police and military on the streets of our nation).



I was just trying to help you out.

No worries.

Mr. W

Then I encourage you to watch the ENTIRE speech instead of the snippet that was posted at the top of this thread as you clearly inferred what was pathetically and politically implied (that these were scary organizations Obama intended to outfit with guns/weapons that could and would supplement our police and military on the streets of our nation).



I was just trying to help you out.

No worries.

Mr. W [/quote]


Could you find a link to the whole speech? I keep finding just the same snippet.

RMX,

Here's the link to the entire speech by Obama.

Barack Obama - July 2, 2008 - Colorado Springs, CO

Want2Stay

**EDIT**

If you have a question for the moderators email us directly. Do not post it here.

I'm going to assume that your question is sincere and perhaps based in "ignorance" of the system.

Hospitals, for example, lose money (payment versus cost required to provide a given service) on every Medicare, Medicaid, and Indigent patient they treat. The ONLY thing "keeping the doors open" to be able to provide ANY healthcare treatment IS Private Insurance (either of the Group or Individual variety).

MANY Doctors have already stopped practicing, or "cut back" their practices (i.e. OB/GYN Doctors stopping the OB part) because of soaring Medical Malpractice premiums for insurance against greedy Lawyers and patients willing to sue over anything.

IF you DON'T believe any of this, then look at the PPS/DRG system that has been imposed on Doctors, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, etc. In this case method, the Government "decides" how much they will pay for something and the "only" choice a provide has is whether or not they WILL "accept" what the Government establishes, NOT what the true of cost of service is.

But I can tell you that an increasing number of Physicians, as just one example, are SERIOUSLY considering restricting their PRIVATE PRACTICE (it IS their BUSINESS) to NO LONGER accepting Medicare as a "payor source."

There ARE limits, and there IS a COST for everything. And that cost is what the "nationalized healthcare" advocates refuse to understand.

So when you ask; Precisely who would lose their jobs if we had some more single-payer medicine? , I would respond with a LOT of healthcare providers AND their employees. In addition, ACCESS to healthcare services would be extremely limited.

Don't believe me? Okay, that's your right. But I would suggest perhaps a lot more actual research into this area before coming to a conclusion as implicated by that question.



You wrote: "To a large extent, we already have socialized medicine today.

The military, state, and federal employee's all enjoy single-payer health benefits and most consider it a wonderful essential perk of the job.

The uninsured get "free" emergency room care.

Medicaid operates at a 3% overhead rate.

Welfare moms get state funded healthcare though it's coverage is wholly inadequate in most states."

Mr. W, I work in the "insurance business" (specifically health insurance) every day. You are 100% correct that we already DO have some forms of Socialized Medicine. And it doesn't work very well. Yes, for SOME people, it DOES help them, but the COSTS are paid for by restricting payment and by charging OTHERS for the cost of the system (i.e. taxpayers).

Health problems ARE expensive, but "nationalized healthcare" is NOT the answer. But I'm much too tired to go into the idea that "capitalism" IS what has given us a such a "world-wide envied" healthcare system that HAS made tremendous strides. From chartitable places like St. Judes Medical Center to advances in Medical Treatment and Pharmaceuticals based on Return Of Investment and in getting PAID for the services offered. WHO is going to fund the research and development when the Government decides what IS and what IS NOT paid for, and HOW MUCH is paid?

What you are advocating here is not much different than, say, you NEED a $50,000 car or truck to BE ABLE TO WORK, but you only want to give the Auto Company $10,000 for that "NEEDED" vehicle.

WHO pays the difference? Why would the Auto Company not simply get out of the business and provide NO vehicles regardless of anyone else's "need" if it costs more to MAKE the product than they will receive in payment FOR the product?

Healthcare is NO different. PEOPLE provide the services, NOT "buildings" and "plants." (hospitals, medical practices, etc.)

Mr W. - You are fortunate that you have enjoyed "good health."

But you are "incredibly naive" in your reasoning here. And I'll bet you've never "come close" to needing the coverage you pay for to insure your house or car either.

I'm betting you've never used your Social Security fund or your Medicare Fund either, yet you pay a HIGH portion of your income for them...to fund others who DO use them to the tune of WAY MORE than they have ever "contributed" into the system.

And if you think that the level of taxation is NOT "usury" itself, then you have an interesting concept of what "usury" is.

To claim that the Personal Responsibility action of actually paying for insurance (which is NOTHING more than attempting to shift the responsibility for PAYING for things you need to someone else, i.e. the insurance company (you give them a premium and they give you a TON of money 'in the bank' to use should YOU actually need it, rather than you reaching into YOUR pocket to get the money)) is "unbiblical, unethical, illegal and immoral" is simply an UNTRUTH.




There is nothing wrong with "oversight, but there is a LOT wrong with confiscatory policies, especially when the government has done everything it can to RESTRICT and PREVENT new resources from becoming available.

And if you think that "Government" has a "duty or soul," you are wrong. Goverment, too, is made up of many individuals who also cheat and do "wrong things," primarily just to "keep their jobs" and not for the good of the people. Most of those "self-serving" individuals are called "politicians," not "career employees working within the "business of Goverment."




Why do you think that "insurance provider of last resort" IS so expensive?

Why do you think that employer based "group" insurance tends to be much more expensive than a private individual insurance policy?

Why do you think that DENTAL Insurance is "high cost" and strictly limited in the annual maximum that it will pay out (and even that is on a 50/50 basis with you paying half before you have have to 100% of anything over the maximum pay out per year)?

Could it be that the insurers KNOW that people who take Dental Insurance ARE GOING TO USE IT?

Why DOESN'T insurance pay for Cosmetic Surgery? After all, it helps people "look better" and we all want to "look better?"

Why DOESN'T the Goverment pay for anything that THEY don't think is "medically necessary?" After all, if THEY are to be the Single Payor Source, you'd think that they SHOULD "cover everything," right?

And if you truly THINK that "people could reliably retire on their savings as they could more easily predict their future non-medical needs (thus opening up positions for younger people to advance)" then you don't understand what a confiscatory TAX policy is or it's affect on the ability of people to SAVE FOR THEMSELVES and their heirs.

Have you, for example, ever heard of what happens to all the money you paid into Social Security or Medicare if you DIE?

Have you, for example, ever heard about the "Death Tax?"

Have you, for example, ever heard of the "Inheritance Tax?"

Have you, for example, ever heard that the Government WILL NOT pay for any Long Term Care needs beyond "Acute Care," and of that, they will only pay for 20 days without you paying any copay and UP TO only another 80 days WITH a LARGE copayment from you?

Mr. W, you are ranting about a system you seem to know very little about and are "knee-jerking" a response based on an apparent emotional response.

If you truly want to do something to lower the COSTS of healthcare IMMEDIATELY, then support TORT Reform and slap huge limits on the LAWYERS. Make the LAWYERS represent their clients Pro Bono, or at some low fee rate of, say, $5.00 per day.

Last thought: You CAN work for any company you want to work for and you DO NOT HAVE TO take the offered insurance. You CAN take the money (less the additional taxes the goverment will take) and BANK your money to pay for your own medical costs if they arise. That IS called "personal responsibility" and I would support your decision to do so. Just DON'T come clammoring for ME to pay for YOUR healthcare costs when, and if, the need arises.

Mr. Wondering - here's another thought to go along with your idea that the government should provide your healthcare and you not have to pay for it yourself:

Why stop there?

Why not have the government also provide everyone with a car?
Why not TWO or MORE cars if people in the household NEED a car to get to work, the grocery store, etc.?

In fact, why not just have government grocery stores where you can just go get whatever food you think you need, regardless of what it costs?

Oh, the heck with it, why not just have the government give everyone a house of whatever "size" they want and pay for anything that is needed should the house need repair or replacement?

Just WHERE do you see the "limits" on what the government should "provide" for everyone and WHERE will the government get the money to PAY for those things so that you no longer have any responsibility for paying for anything you want or need?

This is a serious flaw in the plan though. Trying to reason (diplomacy) with Iran, N Korea, and the rest of them is like trying to reason with a 2 year old.

These people DO NOT like the USA, they DO NOT like our way of life. They pray on our moral way of thinking....ie killing innocent people, etc.

Do you TRULY believe that you can reason with a Muslim extremest?? DO you TRULY believe just because you are politically correct that the rest of the world is going to be the same?

I think it's me, but I didn't see anything wrong with what I said. There were no personal attacks in any of my posts

FH you said that you had somethings you wanted to discuss about my earlier post. If you have the time I would love to see your perspective.

Good grief...one minute conservatives are afraid that we're all going to die by Al Qaeda's hand if a *gasp!* liberal is elected, then they cry when a *gasp!* liberal proposes increasing our national security.

If McCain had proposed it, you'd probably be crying tears of joy.

To the Man formerly Known as Medc. I would like to apologize. I am sorry if I was being disrespectful to you yesterday. That was not my intention.I have since come to realize that I don't really understand what a DJ is can someone please elaborate on that for. The last thing I want to do is sound self righteous. So want to know what qualifies as a DJ. I can and do admit I am wrong. However admitting am a wrong is not the end, I would like to know how not to repeat my mistake. Thank you.

Few things are more dangerous than underestimating your opponent. Most 2 year olds I've been around haven't developed nuclear capability.



It's hard to imagine not liking another country, or another country's way of life, isn't it? Why is it that only foreigners hate other cultures and kill innocent people?



You're right. Let's do the right thing.

Kill 'em all & let God sort 'em out.

Good Grief is right......Exactly how do you think that UNARMED CIVILIANS are going to SECURE our NATION??

You're basiclly talking about a large 'Neighborhood Watch' who would be best suited to look out for some punk who wants to break into your car not a terrorest who wants to KILL YOU and YOUR FAMILY and everything you stand for and believe in.

This kind of thinking is what facilitied the 1993 bombing of the World Trade center, 9/11, etc.

Why don't we just ALL lay down our guns and destroy our bombs and sit back and let them come and get us. 'Cause you know they will. They're looking for weakness and the Dem's want to give them just that.

They're just waiting for the right time, and with OBAMA the time will be SOON....just as your VP candidate said.

The point was YOU CAN'T reason with a 2 Year old any more than you can reason with these people.


You mean while they are enjoying their 60 virgins ...

DIG, we're cool. I appreciate you taking the time to post your thoughts.

I know that I rub some people the wrong way...but I am okay with that(and I think the DJ you might be referring to was when you basically lectured me on how to post more effectively). To me, it wasn't really a big deal...I told you where I was coming from and would leave it at that.

The way I post, the way I am, works for me just fine. I am not a "catch flies with honey" person in many situations. It might work well for you...I go with what works for me. You will notice that I am very much an issue person. I do not really align myself too closely to individuals here...I fight for what I believe to be right...no matter who is on the other side.


There are very few things I will take personally here...so you know, my hot topics are abuse, custody, sexism, racism and most assuredly abortion. I have no tolerance for any of the above and don't give a hoot if the players are black/white/male/female/gay/straight.

We're okay...I have a very short memory when it comes to disagreements here.

Thank you Medc. I appreciate it. I have to say for what it is worth I abhor the same things you do. I think we just have different way of expressing that. Neither is wrong just different. That is what makes the world such an interesting place. Variety is the spice of life. I for all intense and purposes know how you express yourself. The only reason I said anything about it at all is because I didn't want the thread to get locked and in trying to prevent that, I made it happen. So am happy that you accepted my apology.

Don't "short-change" them, JoJo. I think the correct number is 72, not 60.

But I also wonder what the women "martyrs" get? I can't recall ever hearing that?

And those pre-pubescient boys, what do they get? Not even ready to handle one virgin, let alone 72?

DIG, I'll have to go back and review that post. With all the "stuff" that's been going on since then, I've gotten a bit distracted.

Let's take the video point by point...

Obama: Seeks to end the war in Iraq.
Since it's costing us $10 billion per month and the Iraqi government is seeking for our withdrawal we should do just that. We removed Sadam from power and should let the Iraqi people take it from here. I would say our very presence there is causing more harm than good at this point.

Obama: I will cut 10s of billions in wasteful spending.
They key to this statement is WASTEFUL spending. There are no plans to cut the size of the military but rather to optimize it to perform better. Big difference.

Obama: I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
The key to his statement is UNPROVEN. We already have a very capable missile defense system. Remember the spy satellite that was shot down a few months ago. The technology already exists to defend against missile attacks. There is no need to continue throwing money down the drain.

Obama: I will institute an independent defense priorities board.
Sounds like a good idea to me to institute some oversight to be sure we are getting the most for our defense tax dollars.

Obama: I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons.
The United States currently has an arsenal of over 5,500 nuclear missiles. That's enough fire power to destroy the entire planet 22 times. It's overkill and completely unnecessary and puts the US in danger just by it's existence. For instance, check out this story of the nuclear missile silo that burned up and no one knew about it for 5 days. Air Force: Nuke missile silo fire went undetected

Now, it can easily be argued that there is no one in the military more respected that Colin Powell. These two men have met many times and I'm sure much of what they discussed was Obama's military policies. Does anyone really believe that if Colin Powell believed that Obama's plans would weaken our military that he would then offer his support to him for president?

I guess I just don't see where all this FEAR is coming from.

Want2Stay

The next thing is I don't understand where all this outrage is coming from over Obama's proposed cap and trade energy plans. For those of you that don't realize it, McCain has these exact same plans for dealing with GHG. The only problem is that it appears that Obama has put a great deal of thought into it and what will have to be done to accomplish it. It's not like McCain's plan is magically not going to have similar affects as Obama's.

John McCain's Cap and Trade Policy

Want2Stay

Cap And Trade and throw in Kyoto protocols are insane and suicidual.

We are competing in a global economy with new major powers of China and India.

Do you think for one minute that other countries and trading blocs are going to play by the same rules?

Replacement of Coal generation plants will happen when the new technology is cost effective but to artificially raise energy costs in the current environment before the technology is available is crazy talk.

Currently coal gasification, ethanol and other clean technologies actually use more energy than it net produces. There are no easy answers and will take the brightest scientists.

All ideas need to be explored such as natural gas, offshore drilling, solar and wind (environmentalist are now against the turbines because of danger to birds and the mired views of the fans).

If McCain and Obama are for cap and trade than both are wrong. Basically cap and trade is a form of rationing through artificial higher costs and makes the Al Gore folks happy they are saving the earth in which they are not.

Rwinger,

Agreed, this is a tough issue we face. Like you said, the main concern is making it cost effective enough to use the technology, but that is not going to happen until we force industry to do so.

Here's something really cool that you probably didn't hear anything about. The alternatives exist, we just need to put forth the investment to make them feasible.

'Remarkable' Discovery: Scientists Burn Saltwater

Want2Stay

Oh my...

If we burn saltwater...what about the oil and coal industry.

Think of all the job losses.

W

interesting - I guess dont go near the beach with that tool (joke).

Rwinger,

Be honest...had you heard anything about that discovery before now?

It should have been touted as the discovery of the century, yet it was squelched like crazy. Makes you wonder who did the squelching doesn't it.

Want2Stay

Mr W

Sarcasm aside.

Cheap and incredibily abundant energy will provide a lift in other sectors in the economy. Perhaps a revitalized auto industry with cars running on saltwater would offset some of it.

btw - oil industry will die someday - since there is no oil being made in our life time. It will eventually be too expensive to suck from the ground.

Wants - Nope - never heard of it. But the next gen of energy will need to come from creative ideas and accidents like in the article. Sure hope the cell phone does not emit those radio freq. It goes to show you that there are many unknowns out there eh?

There have been quite of few discoveries in hydrogen cells, etc. the problems lies the net energy produced. If it takes heat and energy (oil) to produce any quantities of ethanol or to gasify coal - we are spinning our wheels.

That RF electrolosis generator uses more energy than it creats.

Iceland is using geothermal electrolosis generators to power hydrogen buses.

It's nothing new, you have to STORE hydrogen and that's the tricky albeit dangerous part. FAR more dangerous than propane or gasoline.

Not in the Hindenberg sort of way, but a super freezing sort of tragedy in an accident.

WHY?

Until there is a practical use for it, it is just a interesting story.

There are real alternatives to our energy crisis here and available today...geothermal heat and cooling systems would save us HUGE amount of money and reduce our carbon footprints a lot. Solar, wind, etc.




No..but it sure makes for a stupid conspiracy theory.

Quote:
It should have been touted as the discovery of the century

OK, take YOUR money and INVEST it in this technology, then explain away the fact that the venture failed through some elaborate theory worthy of a delusional street person.

Quote:
Makes you wonder who did the squelching doesn't it.

Do you have a degree in science or engineering, if not you are part of the problem.

Annoys me in the same way medical ignoramuses complain about medical practices. If you don't know what the KREBS cycle is or how DNA and RNA work then shut your mouth, you haven’t done your homework, you FAIL. I think years ago people were ashamed of their stupidity now it is a badge of honor.

Go into the lab and figure out that cure for cancer these PHDs are keeping secret.

BTW having worked in research, there is no way a professor or scientists is going to suppress a discovery these people are just too dang ego driven. Unfortunately the easy problems are exhausted.

NJ

Billy club-wielding security guards at Philly polls

And the Jackbooted Brown Shirts are out in the open.

Well said NJ--

But are you old enough to remember when Reagan took Jimmy Carter's solar panels off the White House? I do! I was working for a big wind energy company at the time. I'm old enough to know where we would be now if we had been allowed to stay on the course we were on.

as I noted on another thread, I have personally verified this stuff with my old partner.

Funny though...the local liberal rag newspaper is not reporting any of this.... go figure.

Black mayor (Obama supporter decides where police are stationed). What a surprise that this is going on.

I went to Philly once----by accident.

Took the kids to Sesame Street Place north of the city on the NJ border.

But a wrong turn later--we were in Beirut. Whole neighborhood looked like they had been bombed out.

Sesame Place is in Langhorne, PA. The bad spots of Philly are about 75 minutes from there.

Yes, inner city Philadelphia can look like a battle zone...much the same as any inner city that I have visited.

Really?

That was in 1989-1990. I've been afraid to go back since.

We stayed at the airport Marriott south of the city and rented a car to see Pennsylvania. Our first trip was to Sesame for the day. We got lost in the city for a little while. It was scary!

On our way to the park there were cars broken down on the turnpike that goes around the city--I'm talking major lane expressways. On our way back these same cars were missing major pieces like all their wheels!

Then we went back to the hotel and watched the news--It was scary---violence murders and stuff.

I'm from the Boston area. I work in the city. I thought Philly was going to be like Boston. So I wasn't prepared to be SCARED!

Maybe things are better now.

An interesting thing, but apparently far from being of an practical, let alone economical, use....if ever.

Desalination may be the best long term option for this if they can overcome the energy cost to run the radio wave generator.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-burning-water.html

John Roach
for National Geographic News
September 14, 2007

Salt water can indeed burn when exposed to a certain kind of radio wave, a university chemist has confirmed.

Rustum Roy of Pennsylvania State University verified earlier this month that the radio waves break the water into its components, allowing the resulting freed hydrogen and oxygen to catch fire.

Independent scientists said the phenomenon is credible as explained, though practical applications of the technology remain uncertain and it's unlikely to be a source of cheap energy.

they're not any better.

Just to give you an idea of the atmosphere in Philly...the last mayor, John Street is a thug. When he was elected, he said.."The brother's and sisters are running this city."

And guess what...he governed like he meant it.

I had hopes for the new mayor...but he is also showing himself to be a hypocrite when it comes to racial issues. Whites have been leaving Philadelphia in droves...their tax base is eroding and frankly, there is little hope for the city. It really is a shame...I would love to again call Philly home...but as it currently stands...it will never happen.

As evidenced by the news being discussed here, many (I Dare say most) in Philly are not looking at this election as a beacon of hope...but rather a hope for an easy dollar in their pocket.

You steal the golden eggs that don't belong to you...shame on you.

You kill the golden goose and no more golden eggs...period.

Socialism as envisioned by Obama as his "new America" will kill the golden goose, bake it, serve it with orange sause, and we'll all remember what it "used to taste like" once it's extinct.

The "great experiment" that birthed the one and only golden goose will dissolve into the robust style of France and Russian.

I wonder if Australia would mind a few more foreign imports?

I am considering Belize.

How about a compromise?

Bali?

pu,

Delta is ready when you are.

W

Two many mosquitoes.

That's why I live in a Blue State. 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes live in the Red States.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...uarding_Fairmount_Ave_Polling_Place.html

I've been pondering this "civilian security force" thing, and considering the reports of attempted lawsuits against conservative media, I hope that my latest thoughts on the matter are NOT true!

LC, I guess we shall see what Obama meant w/ regards to this Civilian Security Force.

And we shall see what he meant when he said he was going to FUNDAMENTALLY change America.

And we will see whether he will defend and protect the "fundamentally flawed" Constitution.

Too bad, we couldn't have gotten answers to these questions ...too bad we couldn't find out who he really was. What he believed.... what his world view was BEFORE the election.

...but everyone likes surprises, right?

It usually takes "until the people" get fed up with the king and his minions.

"Texalaska" is beginning to sound better and better as a "future option."

But we have to remember that while the Dems won't use the military to seal the borders, they WOULD use the military against the people of this nation who "dared" to say "enough is enough" and voted with their feet to LEAVE the USA.

And, maybe this Civilian Security Force is a warning/threat to conservatives to keep their mouths shut.

Again..

You do realize that neither the Peace Corps nor the Ameri Corp personnel carry weapons???

Did you even watch the WHOLE speech?

I could understanding prolonging this myth/spin BEFORE the election (Rove formula FEAR = VOTES) but really hoped reality would rule the day thereafter.

This is a "civilian" group of individuals doing volunteer and/or low paying volunteer type work for our country. The Peace Corp will be the outreach vehicle overseas and will aid our "National Security" by undertaking goodwill projects around the world restoring, once again, people's hope and belief in America that has been decimated these last 8 years. Ameri Corp will be the domestic band of mostly college kids going around the country helping communities deal with issues of blight, poverty, clean up of contaminated lands and waters, alternative energy projects, etc.

This is hardly a "brown shirt" threat. NOWHERE does anyone say they will carry guns....the clip only wants you to infer such by taking a sentence or two out of context for political reasons.

Watch the whole video...it is inspiring.

Mr. Wondering

Yeah, and this week Republicans found out how true that is.


What happened to Bali?


Huh? Who is keeping you from leaving?

AGG

I suggest Canada.

I hear they have and prefer their universal health care.

Mr. Wondering

Well, according to FH, Democrats won't let him leave...

AGG

This can't be true.

Haven't you heard the country is united now?

GWB won w/ 51% of the vote and the country was divided.

BHO wins w/ 52% of the vote and the country is united.

Mr. W., I didn't say anything about guns. My thoughts are more along the line of a ummm..."rat fink patrol", where those belonging to whatever "civilian security force" report any anti-Obama/anti-Dem talk to somebody, who will then do whatever is decided to be done...maybe IRS audits, ala Clintons, or some kind of harassment. I have NOT read anything about such a thing, but given reports of Obama's campaign threatening to sue conservative radio talk shows, and, after that failed, then using its people to tie up the show's phone lines so people couldn't call in and ask questions. It certainly seems as if Obama can't stand criticism, although he apparently managed to bite his tongue a number of times during the debates.

Marsh, I guess that 1% must be what united us all, huh? :RollieEyes:

Do you need auditing??

My friend...I find it hard to believe you are genuinely that concerned about a bunch of college aged kids in the Peace Corp and/or AmeriCorp policing you, your thoughts and statements. Our country is in greater trouble than I realized if you and I are worthy of presidential concern.

Besides...it would take a pretty big army to track down everyone that even criticizes the Obama adminstration. After all, 40-42 percent of the country voted against him (after factoring in the Dibold miscalculations)

You certainly are entitled to your opinion.

Your friend,

Mr. Wondering

Been audited...several times. Due to cash flow problems, we had trouble PAYING taxes on time, but no major changes in the amount of taxes we owed. However, it is just a HUGE hassle.

And, c'mon, Mr. W.! A "bunch of college age kids in the Peace Corp and/or AmeriCorp" are not what I would consider a "SECURITY FORCE", which is what Obama said it would be.

I should think that, with such a loyal following, there would likely be no problem with getting anyone to report/deal with those who criticize him. Then, too, I suppose it would depend on maybe who criticizes him and how. Or, perhaps, it would be more of a way to shut down any citizen groups that might post a threat to Obama's policies.

Just so you know...I'm not so concerned about OBAMA, but I am concerned about the man whom I believe is BEHIND him. And, I would still like to see Obama's REAL birth certificate, since the one his campaign posted was obviously (for several reasons) a fake!

All we can do is wait and see what Obama does. I truly hope that you never have to say, "OMG, what have I done?"

This was disproven several times LC.

Born in the U.S.A.

Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.

There are several unedited photographs from many different angles at the site. I hope this reassures you that Obama most definately is a natural born citizen.

Want2Stay

Well, I guess that's good enough, then, W2S. Thanks for clearing that up.

My reasons for believing that the "scanned" copy posted on the campaign website was actually faked are: 1. Obama's father's race is listed as "African". Ummm...Africa is a continent, not a race. In 1961, the terminology would have correctly been "Negro", unless the person filling out the birth certificate was somewhat ignorant of the correct term. 2. IF Hawaii uses a security watermarked certified birth certificate, the word "Copy" (or whatever terminology Hawaii uses) would have shown up in the scanned image, as it did when I scanned my own birth certificate. However, maybe that was "photoshopped" out.

LC,

Until Obama presents a "vault" copy of his birth certificate, for an independent examination, questions about this will persist.

And there still remains the question of whether or not his stepfather denounced his American citizenship when Obama (if he) became an Indonesian citizen. From what I've read, if this were true, he would not be a natural born citizen.

Here's something you might be interested in reading.

Here's Rahm Emanuel talking about compulsory civil defense service

I wonder if this is what Michelle was talking about when she said this..

"Barack Obama will REQUIRE you to work. He is going to DEMAND that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will NEVER ALLOW you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

Or is there more to come than the CSF?

LINK

Wow.

I think they had common experiences in Nazi Germany too.

Wow.

Even Camille Paglia is asking questions about his birth certificate...

"But simple questions about the certificate were never resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks to their own blathering, fanatical overkill, of course, the right-wing challenges to the birth certificate never gained traction.

But Obama could have ended the entire matter months ago by publicly requesting Hawaii to issue a fresh, long-form, stamped certificate and inviting a few high-profile reporters in to examine the document and photograph it. (The campaign did make the "short-form" certificate available to Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.)"



Some have suggested that his university records might show he received foreign aid...

Anyway, lots of questions...

LINK

I cannot begin to tell you how much this man scares the crap out of me.

We don't know who he REALLY is...

even Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw admitted they don't know who he is.

LINK

And Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said "There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all of this."

And he said... "He's a -- I think, a deeply manipulative guy..."

Later, all three marveled about how it was "amazing" that Obama "watches us watching him."

LINK

But, they never bothered to find out who he was, or express their unease w/ him BEFORE the election.

Hey MM, I think Ive seen this all before too, it was just a little hard to listen to the video and comprehend what was being said because it was in German.

I know my dad had to put in 6 months service in the Navy fortunately between the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

3 months service in some states National Guard or other civilian program (think Americorp/PeaceCorp) sounds a heck of a lot more cushy than the alternative we were given and fortunately didn't buy on November 4th...

McCain's Military Draft

Our teens can sleep more soundly knowing Obama was elected over a war monger. They MAY have to serve (though despite the spin I'm betting it will be voluntary), but at least such service will be in Georgia, USA and not Georgia (the country), Iran or Iraq or wherever else McCain would have taken us.

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - Strange...the invading of other countries on false pretenses, the Patriot Act, Blackwater and the Guantanamo Bay detention center was something that actually happened during the Bush Adminstration and, yet, not a peep from the current Godwin's law posters.

p.p.s. - From the Campaign (notice Virginia and California already have similiar "forces")

Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): There is presently no mechanism for civilians with special skill-sets (be they doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) and a sense of service, to be trained and organized to help their nation when it needs them. The Civilian Assistance Corps (modeled after similar auxiliary groups in Virginia and California) would provide each federal agency a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in crises. They would be pre-trained and screened for deployment to supplement departments’ expeditionary teams. The creation of such a corps would ensure that true experts carry out tasks such as restoring electricity or creating banking systems, rather than the current practice of expecting already over-burdened soldiers to assume these roles. An Obama administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel.

Some More Good News

More democrat cheating, I see.

Funny how when there are recounts, more votes come out disproportionately in favor of the dems.

I'm sure the obtuseness will continue on the liberal side for the destruction of our nation at any cost.

Yeah, cheating the CONVICTED FELON from winning re-election. :RollieEyes:


It's not recounts that are taking place. It's the early vote and absentee ballots that are being counted.


Take a look around...the Republicans already destroyed our nation. The dems were just elected to come in and clean up the mess they left behind.

Want2Stay

Even more good news.

Why Al Franken Will be Minnesota's Next Senator

Want2Stay

Rep. Paul Broun of the 10th Congressional District of Georgia (think Northeast rural Georgia and Appalachia) has actually tried to go mainstream with this stuff.

Nutty Georgia Congressman goes Nazi Berzerrkkk

The entire comments section is fascinating. A must read for anyone who may be still interested in this stuff. I learned about all sorts of conspiracy theories. I learned that not only is Obama related to Cheney but he's Bush's 11th cousin as well and that the Center for Foreign Relations (CFR) controls everything.

Anyway...I liked this particular comment to the MSNBC article about the CDC proposal and found it relevant to this thread.

Thanks for the link. What is ridiculous is how the right can take two sentences out of context and weave it into this vast conspiracy theory. Just a little digging easily disproves this whole notion of some Nazi-esque security force.

If you view the entire speech given on July 2nd in Colorado Springs, it's obvious what Obama's intent is when his statements are put into the correct context.

Entire Obama Speech From July 2nd - The part about CSF is about 16 minutes into the clip.


Makes a big difference when you place it with the comments leading up to those two sentences doesn't it? I just don't see how expanding the civilian service in our country can be seen as a bad idea. Our military is stretched to it's max and we are going to need civilian forces to help fill in the gaps. Whether it be from natural disaster or infrastructure building.

To top it off, he even plans to compensate college students very well for serving, giving them a $4000 tax credit for just 100 hours of community service. That works out to an effective pay rate of $40 an HOUR! What a great opportunity for someone struggling to pay for our outrageous higher education costs. Looks to me like it's a win/win proposal benefiting our country and the American youth. To each his own I guess.

Want2Stay

This is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause.


Obama WILL be goose stepping all over the constitution from day one.

We all know his stance on the second ammendment, and he has stated that he wants to make the AWB permanant. I don't know about y'all but I don't need some left wing wacko telling me what I am responsible enough to own.

The cities with the tightest gun control are absolute cesspool war zones.

Why? ONLY THE CRIMINALS ARE ARMED!

I think we'll be alright here in Texas. Gun sales are on the rise in Texas since right before and after Obama was elected.

It's been said that Obama wants to monkey with the right to bear arms. That doesn't sit well here in Texas. That's like saying we can't own a pickup.

Gun Sales Up in Texas

If Obama tries to take away the wrong person's guns he will wind up on the business end of a scope. People will only tolerate so much and while I am in favor of some sane gun laws...Obama, as with many things he does, attempts to take it too far. I do not see the Supreme Court allowing him to trample all over the 2nd amendment. Gun sales are brisk here as well...including a new Sig Sauer for me.

That's what I'm thinking too.

It is my understanding that any "messing with the gun laws" would entail a ban on THE CONTINUED manufacturing of assault rifles (like the Brady law) and possible limits on concealled weapons laws.

Gun sales are brisk out of fear (not everyone is buying assault rifles) and the potential for profiteering (buying an assault rifle today for $800 and sell it on the used market for $5000. after the ban).

I've never owned a gun but thinking about it. Bush has destroyed our economy and crime is always more rampant during economic hard times. Detroit has been disproportionately devastated.

Mr. Wondering

Bush didn't destroy the economy, the market reacted negatively when Obama announced his candidacy and promptly tanked.

Look at coal futures when he said he would personally bankrupt any coal powered generating plants.


Just what are we going to heat our homes with, his rhetoric?

Obama's an idiot and a dangerous one at that, far worse than Bush could have ever imagined being.

What a powerful man to have destroyed a nation's economy all by his lonesome. :RollieEyes:

Have you noticed every time the messiah obama opens his yap, the Dow plummets?

I have never understood the motivation of people who develop and nourish hate for a political opponent. In my opinion, that sort of hate is blinding and does bad things to the hater's character.

Rather than discuss issues and policies - let's call names, use hyperbole and try to inject hatred into the dialogue. I just don't get it.

I did vote for Obama in our state primary - but not in the general election.
I will not attack Obama the way Bush haters attack Bush - I am better than that.

.... forgot to mention - president bashing (no matter who is president) weakens us as a nation.

president bashing = Bush is stupid
policy bashing = this war is (whatever)

RAISE the bar to a higher level of discourse - or continue to be a hater.... at your own peril.

Added:

Implying that Palin was McCain's pick because he wanted to "do her" was insulting on too many levels to be forgotten. My respect was lost at that moment. Opinions expressed after that abomination are taken into consideration of that context - hatred beyond reason.

MrW:

I wanted to comment on this:


Bush had some assistance with that...

And about Detroit? Are you speaking of the auto industry, or the city itself?

The auto industry is in the doldrums Even Toyota's sales are off 23%. And after a period of time, they, as well as GM's and Ford's sales will return. Everybody is scared right now. I'm not going to buy a car if my job might go away, or my hours might get cut, or my investments are worth 30% less than last year.

Hey, I grew up in Detroit. I follow the industry.

Automotive employment in the US is about the same now as it was in 1980. But instead of working for Ford, GM or Crysler, they work for BMW, Benz, Honda, Toyota and other firms.

Should GM/Ford explode? Sure. Why not. Someone will buy that which is productive, and the rest will go the way of the steel mills in Pittsburgh. To rust or to be recycled. (BTW? Crysler is on life support....)

And I say this as an owner of GM Bonds and Ford stock.... (another indication of how well I pick things...

Should the US Gov bail them out? Of WHAT? Thier inability to sell a product? How can the US Gov fix THAT? Because, unlike the banking system, that is thier real problem.

It is said its because they are trying to sell big SUV's, and everyone wants small cars. They can't sell the small car's either. Is the US Gov going to pay the US AM's to retrain all thier engineers to design better cars, and the marketing people to help the engineers to make cars more appealing to the buying public? No. The US AM's will just keep funding thier advertising and marketing budgets.

Will people be hurt? Yes. Which leads me to the City of Detroit angle.

There is crime in the city, and it has NOTHING to do with the economy. IT will be there whether or not the economy grows, or shrinks. This is because the crime is based in drug issues. I want to control this corner where I sell the to suburban boys looking for drugs, and I will kill you to make it happen. And the local druggies will take anything of value from anyplace they can to convert to drugs. So, you can't really keep ANYTHING of value in the city any longer. Someone will just steal it. Been there, watched it happen....

And as a fine example of how to administatively run a city, the City of Detroit is the poster child for failed policies and rampant cronyism. And for hand-outs not helping fix the problems.

Gun laws? Sure, Obama may make moves to tighten up certain things. The Brady folks will get a MUCH more listening ear then the current administration is giving them. Congress has to pass the laws, and that land is friendlier to the Brady folks as well. In the meantime, I'm laughing all the way to the bank if I am a gun retailer.... And I would have NO PROBLEM with inflating those sales figures, to encourage EVEN more sales.

It will be a very dark and dangerous day in the United States when the criminals have the run of the streets. I don't see it happening under Obama. Didn't happen during the Depression, and no matter what, this recession will NEVER equal those times.

Sorry, let me kick this soap box to the side here.

LG

Pep:

There is a reason I think your terriffic.

These two lines:


Say so much.

There is MUCH in Obama's policies that I will fight. There is SO MUCH about W. Bush's policies that have made me crazy.

But they are the president. And for that, I am grateful.

I live in a nation where my local congressman and I shared a Hot Dog outside of a local 7-11 one night. He was driving home for the night, I was getting a bite and then back to taxes.

I watched out my window yesterday as his replacement finally accepted congratulations from his opponent.

Nobody had any bodyguards.
Several other Republicans like me, hovered around the edge of the crowd, pleased, not because a Democrat won, but because our Congresspeople CAN Stand in front of the cameras and out in the open and have no fear.
There was quibbling about procedures on the vote count, but NOBODY seriously challenged or had reason to challenge the result.
Nobody died trying to vote last Tuesday.

Does anyone remember G. Bush, Sr.'s "Thousand Points of Light?" Obama'a Civilian Security force will amount to about the same thing.

LG

I agree. As a registered Democrat, I agree! (yep, it's true, I am a Dem)

Yes, united we stand, devided we fall.


You know, this is a subject that has impacted different decisions I have made through out my life. My father was a military man and serious gun collector. None of my siblings or I wanted his extensive gun collection after he died because we all feel the way I did/do. I did not want a gun in my home.

This from a girl who used to go to the rod & gun club with my dad and shoot skeet as a child.

I decided not to become a customs officer because I didn't want to carry a gun.

My dad had given me a gun to carry in my glove box on my long, remote commutes to college and back, but it made me very fearful and I had to give it back to him. I just couldn't stand it in my glove box. Weird, I know.

Anyway, I am now like you, considering it at our new home in Savannah because of the very high crime rate there. My husband actually has one there already (I'm still in MI and my heart is breaking for the people of this state) and I haven't made him get rid of it (if I even have that power, I don't know, hasn't been tested. LOL).

But because I trust my husband implicitly in the safety dept, I'll follow his lead here. And no small children in the house.

God, I hate guns. I can't believe we are to this point.

I always thought pepper spray was more than enough to protect myself. Now I worry that if our dollar fails all h*ll is going to break out. Good people will consider doing bad things, and bad people, well bad people will get worse.

I agree wholeheartedly, Pep. And I am especially saddened to see the name calling here between people who presumably came here for more or less the same reasons - recover from infidelity and save marriages. Yet that supposed bond is nowhere to be found in these discussions.

That's why I have stayed away from these threads recently, as they have become a cesspool of hatred and anger, both towards candidates and towards posters. The former is unfortunate, the latter reprehensible.

AGG

It's very important that we pull together now. If you haven't been touched yet by this economic downslide, you are very fortunate, but rough times ahead for everyone.

The whole world is watching us. I have many clients in other countries, and several friends in Canada. They are all watching us closely.

I was proud the day Obama got elected. We were in Savannah and both my husband and I cried because of the hope we felt that day, in that city. It was like nothing I have ever witnessed in my life. I felt joy/hope coming from people everywhere we went. It was surreal. I'll never forget that day, that feeling for as long as I live.

I will keep my personal opinions about either candidate to myself, but I will back the one who got elected now.

A few things I have learned from my years on this board (I hardly ever read here anymore, but still think of the friends I made here often) is that I have great respect for other people and that means their opinions as well.

When I attack another person, I have learned that I attack all, because it affects everyone who reads it.

Pep, AGoodGuy, et el are so right.

From the local paper...

"There's been a dramatic change, a 70 plus percent increase in the number and type of (gun) sales."

"Other things (in the store) aren't selling, but all the guns are. I don't have enough to sell. I've pulled everything that was pawned that we have, but if I had long guns, they'd sell."

"I've never sold guns this quickly."

I have a hard time believing this is all due to the election. People realize if this does not turn out good, we will need guns to get food or protect our food and property. or to protect us from the government. either way, times are interesting.

LOL, to put it mildly.

I have heard that saying "locked and loaded" more than anything else in the past few months. I never even heard it before all this.

Crap, a red-neck friend of ours down south, who was in our home the night of the election, even said he went to check on his "momma" to make sure she was locked and loaded. I about choked. He was dead serious, too. And he was more afraid of what would happen down there if his candidate won, than if he didn't.

Interesting for sure. I had to stop reading economic doom and gloom articles to my husband because it was doing really unhealthy things to his blood pressure.

I'm from down south and someone from the north calling a southerner a redneck is as insulting as calling a black person the n word.

The term is condescending, divisive and elitist.

We aren't stupid here, heck, in fact our economy is is better shape than the resource strapped north.

Lemme tell you, when there was NO fuel to be had in Atlanta, the have-nots were robbing and killing the unarmed for fuel and money.
Even Tabs took the pistol out of the glove box when I would fuel the truck and she doesn't even like guns.

Who do you think is doing the spinning?

Obama’s right hand man used the word ‘required’.


A military draft comes under the Constitutional power to raise and maintain armies.

Where does Obama's 'REQUIRED' Civilian Security Force come under it?


This link ^ was dishonest.

McCain has stated many MANY times that he was against a new draft.

Here's one example:LINK

Here's an UNCUT video of the ENTIRE exchange between that NM woman and McCain.

It was obvious that McCain was responding to the meat of the woman's question, not her exasperated remark at the end.



I have no problem w/ a pool of EXPERTS VOLUNTEERING their services.

I do not consider REQUIRING teenagers/college students to 'serve' on security forces the same thing.

Why doesn't Obama encourage young people to join the military?


You think FORCING citizens to 'serve' on a security force, is EMPOWERING them?

What would this civilian military force that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded" DO that isn't already being done?

Please, tell me what is he talking about.


Again, why doesn't he encourage our youth to join the military?


LOL

Do you really believe that teenagers/college students w/ three months of "training" are going to rebuild infrastructure?

While Bush Sr's remarks may have mystified me, they certainly never troubled me.

I hope you are right, LG.

But, after listening to what Emanuel said, it looks like they may actually be serious about this.

Bump for MEDC and PM

In case you missed it.

There is no other way to look at this...

“Requiring” folks to do anything that they do not want to do, is a blatant assault on our liberties.

Yes, to each his own.

What's wrong w/ getting a JOB?

It works and it doesn’t impose on anyone’s liberties.

Kids can earn enough while living w/ their parents, to pay their own way through college.

I can tell you that as the father of a now 13 year old boy, my son will not be participating in this required "service." Never, never, never.

What?

No Hitler Jungen for him?

Don't worry, the obamazombies in our education system will have him indoctrinated and goose stepping in no time!

They will be taught to turn in their parents for being "enemies of the state".

Then will come the night of the long knives.

What would this civilian military force that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded" DO that isn't already being done?

Please, tell me what is he talking about.

That’s why as President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, 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 efforts 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 cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, 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 Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
-----

Seems pretty obvious to me what the objectives will be. He's counting on the US citizens to rebuild our country. He intends to invest in projects that will foster community and bring our nation closer together.

He also mentioned starting an Energy Corps which would fit with another possible objective he stated in an interview he gave. In that interview, he talked of the possibility of rebuilding our electric grid. A massive project that would need the kind of involvement he described in his speech. Something that this country will need to do in order to take advantage of renewable energy sources. Our electric grid is a weak point for our country. One that has been mentioned as a potential target for terrorist attacks. When millions of people can loose power with a simple storm, it's time to upgrade the system.



Again, why doesn't he encourage our youth to join the military?
-----

Because it's not necessary since Obama is pro-diplomacy and views war as an action of last resort. Our military wouldn't be stretched to the max if we were not still fighting an unjust war in Iraq. I sure do think our country could use the $800 billion we wasted fighting that war. It was a bad idea from the beginning that will end just as predicted. We were naive to believe that we could invade a country and force ethnic groups that have been fighting for almost a hundred years to stop just because we said so. Not unless you plan to be there for a hundred years to achieve it.


LOL

Do you really believe that teenagers/college students w/ three months of "training" are going to rebuild infrastructure?
-----

Do you really believe that teenagers/college students w/ three months of "training" are going to form some massive paramilitary force to oppress the American people? Which scenario do you think is more plausible?

Anyhoo, this is all just conjecture and speculation because the man hasn't even taken office yet. These are some of he ideas he campaigned under, but there is no guarantee that any of it will come to fruition. Our country certainly has more pressing issues at the moment with the economic crisis. And if it does, nowhere in that speech did Obama say that this service would be "REQUIRED." Nor did he say that this force would be as well armed as the military, but the right sure does like to pretend it was implied just to feed the Obama fear.


Can't exactly respect the office if you're back to fanning conspiracy theory flames 10 days later.

Want2Stay

No, but his chief of staff certainly did.

And he is not the president. It would still have to pass congress which isn't likely to happen. The more plausible scenario would be a voluntary service. This whole idea goes back to where Obama came from as a community organizer. A lot of good can be achieved when people work together. How can this be a bad idea?

Want2Stay

Not. The person Obama picked for a VERY powerful position has made made clear it would be mandatory. I think based upon that, that is lost likely the more plausible scenario.

Most socialist countries have a mandatory military service.
From Britain to Germany.

Not true Medc. There are approximately 32 million Americans between the ages of 18-25. With the numbers stated in the speech, there is no way that you can assume that this service would be mandatory. The numbers just wouldn't add up.

AmeriCorps - 250,000
PeaceCorps - 190,000 x 2 = 380,000
total 630,000

That's a fraction of the people in that age range.

Quote: Obama
People of all ages, stations, and skills will be ASKED to serve.

Want2Stay

Well, if you are right...which I don't think you are...Obama will "correct" the error of his new COS.....which by the way, was repeated over and over. He meant what he said.

Ok, first of all, let me say that, Obama's calls for increasing AmeriCorps to 250,000 is a noble gesture, for sure.

But one that has NOTHING to do with his comment on the civilian security force.

Rahm Emanuel’s comments have put to rest any notion of an expanded Peace Corps. He talked about 3 months of BASIC TRAINING.

For ALL young men and women.

Our military has over 1 million members. Increasing Ameri Corps to 250,000 doesn't come close to making it “just as strong” as the military.

Our defense budget is enormous. What is the Peace Corps going to do w/ an amount equal to the billions of dollars we spend on aircraft or ships? Or the payroll for over 1 million?


I've never said I believe he's going to "form some massive paramilitary force to oppress the American people".

I have no effing idea what he's planning, Want2. And I sure would like to know.

What HAS been said doesn't make sense to me.

There is no way that I believe it is possible to take college kids and train them... and have them rebuild infrastructure in THREE MONTHS TIME. It is a ridiculous notion, IMO.

Most teenagers/college kids are interested in partying and hooking up. How does he intend to make them show up on time, let alone get them to rebuild infrastructure?

Does he plan on using military style discipline on the kids?

I'm left w/ questions, Want2, lots of them.


I can't help how you interpret my questions, Want2.

I don't believe asking questions about specific plans our future President has is disrespecting him.

Mandatory service = career suicide for politicians.

You might as well be going on and on about Flying Purple People Eaters.

Rebuilding the electric grid for one. These projects are going to cost a lot of money, but it's money we've needed to invest in our country for a long time. The quote "just as strong", "just as well funded" as our military means in the numbers of those that serve and the seriousness of which the program taken. Initiatives like this can not be taken half-heartedly or they will be doomed to fail.


I don't believe they could do it on their own either. I don't think that is the plan though. What I see, is them functioning as a general labor workforce in concert with professionals from given areas.

Like I said Marsh, this is all conjecture and speculation anyways. Let's see how the policy develops before deeming it bad for the country.

I really do see a lot of promise in this administration for the future of our country. I may be wrong, and if I am I would be right there questioning decisions that were made. In the meantime, I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise.

Want2Stay

When?

When the jackboots are marching through your neighborhoods and busting in doors to remove the "enemies of the state"?

If you really believe that and not just spewing sour grapes, you should build yourself a compound and stockpile weapons.

That, or seek out therapy for paranoid delusions.

C'mon...you're not serious, are you?

Did it happen before?

Yes or no?

You must be talking about the wonderful Bush legacy, The Patriot Act.

Want2Stay

Did the dems vote it in or did they fillibuster it to it's death?

I do believe the dems never tried to kill it.

TWICE.

Somebody needs to study their political history.

# Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)
# Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)

That's a lot of Democrats voting YES here.

And I remember Clinton using the FISA law to do his bidding too.

From Obama's victory speech...


A quote by Ayn Rand that I have never forgotten...

“It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of service and sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.”



The election results ensured that Obama would be my next President, they didn't change my opinion of him.

It is impossible to give the benefit of the doubt to someone I don't trust.

However, it is not impossible for him to earn my trust.

I hope that he will.

Maybe you'll feel a little better about your new President if you realize Ayn Rand was an idiot.

I do, and it doesn't make me feel one little bit better about Obama or his support for infanticide or socialism or "government is the answer to everything that ails you."

So which one of us lives in the 57th state?

My H says there are 57 communist countries in the world...do you think there's a correlation?

Lets see, Selma Alabama Bloody Sunday was in 1965.
"My parents got together "because of what happened in Selma."

Obammi was born in 1961.

The man will show his true colors.
An embellisher and liar.

Your "quote" is not Obama's words, but Hollrah's attempts at twisting and spoonfeeding it to an eager audience. The civil rights movement started well before 1965 and 1961, and that was Obama's theme in the speech.

LINK

AGG

And the 57 states with one more to go?

Nice job AGG...I had just googled the same snoops.com post debunking this "controversy".


Here's what the snoops.com says about this 57 states crap.

Snoops - 57 States

Mr. W

So it is true about the 57 states. So it's not crap.
Great.
What is out 56th and 57th state?

I see out enemies are taking a real liking to your new president too.

Good work Mr. W. . I get a chuckle out of the conspiracy theories floating around; the "O" for "Obama" flag fiasco was hysterical.

I have to say that I am amazed at how many folks bobble their heads at this gibberish, passing it around as fact without doing any due dilligence. Oh well. I guess with unemployment rising, too many people have too much time on their hands, so they listen to Rush and believe every word.

AGG

He misspoke. Happens to all of us. George Bush said that he and Reagan had sex.

Get over it.

AGG

Mr W:

Sort of reminds me of when GBush 41 opened a speech with the VFW or American Legion by remembering the brutal attack on Pearl Harbor on its anniversary in 1990 or 1991. He went on about the effects of the attack and his reactions on this day 49 or 50 years ago.

Problem was, he was talking on September 7th, not December 7th. HE kept saying "49 years ago today, the Japanese..." The murmers in the crowd finally slowed him down...

Can a politian make a mistake? Sure.

Is Ayn Rand an idiot? Not any worse then some of the left wing pundits. Ms. Rand was a least able to put her thoughts into a book.

Matter of fact, when I had to write a English Comp thesis paper in college, I selected "Atlas Shrugged" for the subject. The professor looked at me with surprise and asked "Do people still read THOSE books?" Sure! I said.

In many respects, Obama is being seen just like the protagionst in "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead". As the only one who can put this broken thing back together.

Amusing.

LG

Now THAT's plausible!

-ol' 2long

Exactly. I wouldn't worry about someone making a slip-up (the exact date that Bush messed up, or Obama's 47 vs 57 slip-up).

What I do worry about is when it's not a slip-up, but lack of important knowledge. Think McCain saying that Iran and Al Queda are pals.

AGG

AGG,

More great ones from Mr. 22%.

Bush Said What?

Want2Stay

Except the left wing media had a field day with Bush and other Republicans. Remember Potatoe?
Yet the Messiah can do no wrong.
I will not let anyone slide now.
It's open season. And will be for as long as the Messiah is in office.
I will be on him like white on rice.

Oh and in other news, Joe the Plumber was illegally investigated.
I bet this will be buried and accepted as legitimate.
The Obama News Network will quell any thing against him.

You do that.

AGG

Obama calls on his Internet campaign army to march again