Ask Me Help Desk - My comment on Obama keeping the war going

When I brought up how Obama is going to increase and even make new taxes to pay for more government programs the look at how much Republicans pay for the war came up
Which usually is the reply. I said that Obama was going to find a way to keep the war going and just disquise it to look like something else.
Basically this is what it is

Obama's going to create a civilian national security force as strong as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines -- combined? With the same budget? And hardware, apparently?
But what will this "civilian national security force" do? Obama didn't say. Where will they get their funding? Didn't say. Wouldn't this force be at least extra-constitutional, if not unconstitutional? Who would control them? Would service be mandatory like his other youth "volunteer" initiatives?

At this same speech, he promised to withhold funds from school districts that don't make their junior high and high schoolers serve 50 hours a year. 100 hours for college students, provided their type of service is deemed acceptable by a sprawling new Federal bureaucracy.

National youth service in sixteen countries: program characteristics A: Parameters and Scale of Programs

He is suppose to be following Hitlers
REQUIRE COMMUNITY SERVICE

"Service learning": "The purpose of labor service was partly practical--to... provide a source of cheap labor--but mainly ideological. It was a part of the cult of community current in the youth movement now manipulated by the Nazis for their own end. Students would be confronted with Real Life and, by being forced to mix with the less privileged sections of the community, would be reminded that they were all [national comrades] together." (440-441)

Mandatory service: "Service in the Hitler Youth is honorary service to the German people. All young people are obliged from the age of 10 to their 19th birthday to serve in the Hitler youth." (420)

Character Education and Cooperative Learning: "We cannot fight our way out of this deep crisis through intellectualism... The school for character... which is a practical test of true comradeship in work and living is irreplaceable... the true, great, practical school is... in the labor camp, for here instruction and words cease and action begins." (441)

Quinn and rose on XM radio explained it better on their 7/22/08 show 8:30 am

Yeah that was his 'patriotism speech' .

There's lot of things voters need to know about Democrats, and this is a big one: H.R. 393: Universal National Service Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)

Exactly that is it and he is only fooling people to think he will end the war in any way, shape or form.

Hitler's organizing of Germany's youth was geared toward eradicating everyone not Aryan, and making them feel honored in doing so. Anybody with a half an education should turn their radio dial when the AM talk shows spew such remarks against either of our presidential candidates. Anyone with enough money can buy slot time to propagandize the airwaves with BS.

My only criticism of Obama on the proposed CNSF, is with the proportion of money spent when recognizing how many civilians are already employed in conjunction to help the military. It may actually call for relocation of departments similar to the reorganization that led to Homeland Security. Therefore just allocates some of the salaries in addition to hiring more people. The programs though, patriotic and helpful, for the most part are good ideas.

Quote:

H.R. 393: Universal National Service Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)

until the 'patriotism speech ',I thought that Charlie Rangal was a lone wolf on this subject that he periodically and cynically reintroduces from time to time. But if BAMA has signed on expect the rest of the Dems to goose step in unison.

Joseph Farah says: "If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?

"I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?

"Are we talking about creating a police state here?"
Yet, "With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions." Obama's 'civilian national security force'

George, more-than-likely you absorbed the opinion of a Republican talk show host and another Joseph Farah nutcase type that would hook up with Rush Limbaugh to write books. The fact is that most of the Democrats and almost all the Libertarians would rather have the money the spent at home, in the US, as opposed to the Pubs spending more abroad. The only difference in respect to the Democrats and Libertarians on the issue, is that the Libertarians would spend a lot less overall and cut out many of the domestic welfare incentive programs that Democrats championed over the decades.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BABRAM

... The fact is that most of the Democrats and almost all the Libertarians would rather have the money the spent at home, in the US, as opposed to the Pubs spending more abroad. The only difference in respect to the Democrats and Libertarians on the issue, is that the Libertarians would spend a lot less overall and cut out many of the domestic welfare incentive programs that Democrats championed over the decades.

I agree about Libertarians spending less than Dems; you are mixing oil and water when describing Democrats and Libertarians, especially on domestic spending ; as someone once said of Republicans: they are Libertarians with morals. My view is they are similar on foreign policy, which disqualified Ron Paul with many voters: Libertarians are just blind about protecting America's foreign interests, and Democrats are essentially pacifists, the one characteristic that separates them from vanilla fascists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_1950

I agree about Libertarians spending less than Dems; you are mixing oil and water when describing Democrats and Libertarians, especially on domestic spending ; as someone once said of Republicans: they are Libertarians with morals. My view is they are similar on foreign policy, which disqualified Ron Paul with many voters: Libertarians are just blind about protecting America's foreign interests, and Democrats are essentially pacifists, the one characteristic that separates them from vanilla fascists.

Nope. Your opinionated definition was factually incorrect to the subject discussed, example: http://zfacts.com/p/447.html. And granted Bill Clinton's not the poster child for morals, but since when did Republicans become the standard for morals above all other parties?? Examples of Republican hypocrisy on moral values - dKosopedia

I would love to see the list of Democrats too. The difference I see are Republicans are hypocrites and don't get away with it while Democrats get away with their 'indiscretions'

Quote:

Originally Posted by BABRAM

... And granted Bill Clinton's not the poster child for morals, but since when did Republicans become the standard for morals above all other parties??? Examples of Republican hypocrisy on moral values - dKosopedia

Why bring Bill into this? The Democrats, like so-called modern, Libertarians are libertines, and deny morals. Republicans, on the other hand, set the bar high and are very quick to dismiss anyone who doesn't reach it. I can understand Repubs knocking one another off, but I'll never understand why they submit to Democrat/MSM doing it.

I think the whole bunch are hypocrites and unlike George I see it for what it is without making excuses. I'd love to know what his definition of morality is??