Obama Civilian Security Forces

2008-11-04 06:57:26

#26

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6908|US

oug wrote:
Im_Dooomed wrote:
seriously, if we go into a police state and shit starts gettin all socialist then I'm really gonna be glad i decided not to vote.
ok first off, socialism has nothing whatsoever to do with police states - much the opposite really.

and to the point: what does he mean by civilian security forces?

without knowing, this sounds bad...

Both ends of the political spectrum often end in police states. Stalin was no better than Hitler.

Don't we have the FBI and Homeland Security to do this kind of stuff? Why do we need another agency?
The FBI and DHS serve important purposes, but even they need to be watched VERY carefully. I would rather not ever return to a J. Edgar Hoover style agency!

2008-11-04 06:58:57

#27

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6536|tropical regions of london

the DHS is a joke. Another symbol of small governement republicans.

2008-11-04 06:59:59

#28

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6483|Éire

I'd be more worried about powerful private companies like Blackwater being allowed to 'police' people as opposed to some organisation based on the involvement of the people themselves tbqh.

2008-11-04 07:39:43

#29

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6604|'Murka

Braddock wrote:
Hang on a minute... Doesn't the American constitution give you the right to bear arms in order to allow for the existence of a standing militia in the event of national security being compromised?

Anyone who agrees with gun ownership has no real right to complain about what Obama's suggesting here.

At the moment you have mass gun ownership and complete chaos when it comes to gun-related homicides; perhaps a more structured approach like this might instill a bit more pride and respect in gun ownership like they have in Switzerland, where everyone is required to keep a weapon and train for a number of weeks annually for national security purposes?

You are on crack, Brad. Legal gun ownership and a national civilian security force funded by the federal government are two completely different, unrelated issues.

We already have a national crime fighting force: It's called the FBI and Dept of Treasury. Their authorities are extremely limited for good reason. The jurisdictional nature of our police forces goes back to the basic tenets of the Constitution: all powers not explicitly given to the Federal government belong to the States. It was made local for a reason.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-11-04 07:43:42

#30

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6483|Éire

FEOS wrote:
Braddock wrote:
Hang on a minute... Doesn't the American constitution give you the right to bear arms in order to allow for the existence of a standing militia in the event of national security being compromised?

Anyone who agrees with gun ownership has no real right to complain about what Obama's suggesting here.

At the moment you have mass gun ownership and complete chaos when it comes to gun-related homicides; perhaps a more structured approach like this might instill a bit more pride and respect in gun ownership like they have in Switzerland, where everyone is required to keep a weapon and train for a number of weeks annually for national security purposes?
You are on crack, Brad. Legal gun ownership and a national civilian security force funded by the federal government are two completely different, unrelated issues.

We already have a national crime fighting force: It's called the FBI and Dept of Treasury. Their authorities are extremely limited for good reason. The jurisdictional nature of our police forces goes back to the basic tenets of the Constitution: all powers not explicitly given to the Federal government belong to the States. It was made local for a reason.

I'm from Ireland FEOS... I'm on craic!

The video clip doesn't really go into much detail, my support or opposition of such a thing would hang on how much input and say the people themselves actually had on this 'people's army'. Switzerland have a setup that sounds quite similar to this and it has never been a negative thing for them from anything I've ever heard or read.

2008-11-04 07:50:46

#31

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6604|'Murka

I agree that we need more than just that soundbite to determine just what he means.

What bothers me is that absolutely nothing about this has been in the media (mainstream or otherwise). That is very concerning.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-11-04 07:55:22

#32

13rin: Member; +977|6672

Bad Idea, but if he's the Prez and implements it -I'm joining.

I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.

2008-11-04 08:10:15

#33

GorillaTicTacs: Member; +231|6566|Kyiv, Ukraine

DBBrinson1 wrote:
Bad Idea, but if he's the Prez and implements it -I'm joining.

Free assault rifle
Free bullets
Free pass for the shooting range once every few months
3% off my tax rate
100% voluntary (if you would really want to give that up)
100% population involved (always have a conversation starter with complete strangers)

This socialism thing ain't so bad...

BTW, why don't veterans (or active/reserve service for that matter) have a tax discount on federal income tax rates?

Last edited by GorillaTicTacs (2008-11-04 08:12:34)

2008-11-04 08:22:01

#34

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6748

FEOS wrote:
I agree that we need more than just that soundbite to determine just what he means.

What bothers me is that absolutely nothing about this has been in the media (mainstream or otherwise). That is very concerning.

The 'absolutely nothing in the media' might be indicative of what the rest of the segment entailed...

2008-11-04 08:23:45

#35

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6536|tropical regions of london

FEOS wrote:
I agree that we need more than just that soundbite to determine just what he means.

What bothers me is that absolutely nothing about this has been in the media (mainstream or otherwise). That is very concerning.

blame the mccain campaign, they were busy talking about ayers and socialism.

2008-11-04 12:53:33

#36

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6646|The Twilight Zone

So he wants to protect the civilians? Good idea, good man. They would need something like that in Croatia-mafia is assassinating civilians there and police is kinda lost.

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2008-11-04 12:55:40

#37

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6814|London, England

.Sup wrote:
So he wants to protect the civilians? Good idea, good man. They would need something like that in Croatia-mafia is assassinating civilians there and police is kinda lost.

Balkans is still fucked up? I thought all you guys had your own country by now so there was no need for conflict, I guess you all do, now it's all about killing each other within your own various countries...

2008-11-04 12:59:01

#38

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6604|'Murka

.Sup wrote:
So he wants to protect the civilians? Good idea, good man. They would need something like that in Croatia-mafia is assassinating civilians there and police is kinda lost.

Um...that's not at all what "civilian security forces" are. Military security forces protect civilians, too. Maybe something got lost in translation.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-11-04 13:13:56

#39

beerface702: Member; +65|6886|las vegas

maybe this is what he is on about. heh

2008-11-04 13:15:50

#40

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6646|The Twilight Zone

Mek-Stizzle wrote:
.Sup wrote:
So he wants to protect the civilians? Good idea, good man. They would need something like that in Croatia-mafia is assassinating civilians there and police is kinda lost.
Balkans is still fucked up? I thought all you guys had your own country by now so there was no need for conflict, I guess you all do, now it's all about killing each other within your own various countries...

Did a brick fall on your head or you were born stupid? Croatian Mafia is killing Croatian civilians. Get it? Didn't think so

2008-11-05 00:01:18

#41

beerface702: Member; +65|6886|las vegas

very strange how that cult of obama video I posted was taken down by the user.

2008-11-05 00:38:25

#42

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6965|PNW

I like how McCain was all like 'liberty vs socialism' one minute and congratulatory the next. I guess that would make him a socialist sympathizer.

GorillaTicTacs wrote:
All those 2nd Amendment people should be happy...

US Constitution wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Fixed.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-11-05 00:39:52)

2008-11-05 00:54:22

#43

mcjagdflieger: Champion of Dueling Rectums; +26|6504|South Jersey

Um...sounds to me like Obahhhma might try to use this to take our guns...as in no one can have guns except these special police...and try to pass that off as not going around good ole number 2. If I could put my asshairs in obamas soup, i would.

2008-11-05 00:58:28

#44

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6712|Πάϊ

RAIMIUS wrote:
oug wrote:
Im_Dooomed wrote:
seriously, if we go into a police state and shit starts gettin all socialist then I'm really gonna be glad i decided not to vote.
ok first off, socialism has nothing whatsoever to do with police states - much the opposite really.

and to the point: what does he mean by civilian security forces?

without knowing, this sounds bad...
Both ends of the political spectrum often end in police states. Stalin was no better than Hitler.

Socialism is nowhere near the end of any political spectrum. Understand. Socialism is atm a quite real, viable, applicable and all in all mainstream form of governance.

_ƒ³

2008-11-05 01:08:06

#45

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6965|PNW

mcjagdflieger wrote:
Um...sounds to me like Obahhhma might try to use this to take our guns...as in no one can have guns except these special police...and try to pass that off as not going around good ole number 2. If I could put my asshairs in obamas soup, i would.

Clinton had to reign in Janet Reno when she started baiting the crazies, and if Bubba manages to keep Obama's ear, I don't think the 2nd amendment will be bothered too much.

2008-11-05 01:26:53

#46

mcjagdflieger: Champion of Dueling Rectums; +26|6504|South Jersey

Obama will re-instate the AWB...its on his fuck with my shit list. where have you been. instead of suspension for your kid bringing a water pistol to school, he'll probably send them to nationalist socialist security forces for the betterment of america reformation indoctrination school or whatever the fuck he'll call it. semi-jokes aside, the AWB is bothering with the second amendment...

I like it.	30%	30% - 8
Wat?	19%	19% - 5
Seriously! What is he thinking?	42%	42% - 11
Dismantle all US Armed Forces, except Civilian Forces.	3%	3% - 1
Null > and your why.	3%	3% - 1
Total: 26

BF2S Forums Obama Civilian Security Forces

Poll

oug wrote:

Im_Dooomed wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

.Sup wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

.Sup wrote:

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

US Constitution wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

oug wrote:

Im_Dooomed wrote:

mcjagdflieger wrote:

Board footer