Obama announces that the **GOP** will 'cripple' America

[Openmind]

Did prior administrations require a civilian army with a Pentagon sized budget and capability ?

Are we spending a pentagon size budget on civilian service?

Yet, I believe that if we could reduce our military that is oriented to OUTSIDE conquest and dangers, we might be able to INCREASE our focus on INSIDE wellbeing and homegrown dangers!

IF, as Obama said in part of that speech from which you seem to only focus on ONE sentence, we can shift from MILITARY force abroad, to CIVILIAN service to provide more diplomatic communication, rather than aggressive/armed attacks, the whole world might be better off.

Obviously, the big defense industry, especially the arm manufacturers, wouldn't be too happy!

 

[dogtowner]

Are we spending a pentagon size budget on civilian service?

no. more pressing matters have shelved this. not the least of which was a major expansion of outside work for that military.

 

[Openmind]

no. more pressing matters have shelved this. not the least of which was a major expansion of outside work for that military.

The type of "security force" you are talking about has NEVER been Obama's intention. And if you read the whole speech, it is very clear.

Now, what extreme websites have done with this speech is crazy enough that I am surprise some people can actually swallow it! But it has nothing to do with reality.

In fact, if one visits a liberterian site like Alex Jones and his "prison planet," there is more talk there of "arming, and training for a people's army to fight the govenment" than any place else!

As I said before, there are extremists in EVERY arenas! Obama is not one of them.

 

[dogtowner]

The type of "security force" you are talking about has NEVER been Obama's intention. And if you read the whole speech, it is very clear.

Michelle ? how do you hope to know Obama's heart ?

Now, what extreme websites have done with this speech is crazy enough that I am surprise some people can actually swallow it! But it has nothing to do with reality.

In fact, if one visits a liberterian site, there is more talk there of "arming, and training for a people's army to fight the govenment" than any place else!

well as they value liberty this is not surprising

As I said before, there are extremists in EVERY arenas! Obama is not one of them.

well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.

 

[Openmind]

Michelle ? how do you hope to know Obama's heart ?

Apparently you believe YOU know Obama's heart?

well as they value liberty this is not surprising

We all value liberty. Personally, I value my liberty to express my opinion without being ridiculed for it. I value my liberty to walk freely in the street without having an A. . H. . .with a gun trying to scare me. I value my liberty to enjoy sitting on my back porch and watch deer feeding in the woods behind my house. . .without risking that a hunter will fire his gun and kill them, and maybe kill me.

But, I also value other people's liberty, so I accept the "right to bear arms," although I do not agree with it.

However, other people's rights STOP where my rights begin.

well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I think we do. Thanks for noticing.

 

[GenSeneca]

However, other people's rights STOP where my rights begin.

You think you have some "right" to take as much money as you want out of MY wallet, and you claim that your rights end where mine begin?

 

[BigRob]

Did prior administrations require a civilian army with a Pentagon sized budget and capability ?

No..nor does this administration, which is clear if you actually go through their budget proposals and examine the President's statements in context.

 

[Openmind]

You think you have some "right" to take as much money as you want out of MY wallet, and you claim that your rights end where mine begin?

Another big jump to assumptions!

When did I say I wanted to take your mony out of YOUR wallet?

By the way, what makes you so sure that MY wallet has less money in it than YOUR wallet? Because I have empathy with the plague of the poor?

This is a BIG assumption! I may not have a GEN in front of my name, but it doesn't mean that I am (or every was!) on welfare!

 

[GenSeneca]

When did I say I wanted to take your mony out of YOUR wallet?

Advocating for the violation of rights of any individual is an assault on the rights of all individuals. I don't see "wealthy" people as being any less American or any less of an individual than myself. Sure it's popular to attack that particular minority, and it's certainly not popular to stand up for their individual rights, but I would stand up for the rights of any individual that is being threatened with having their rights violated by any other individual or even a voting majority.

 

[BigRob]

Another big jump to assumptions!

When did I say I wanted to take your mony out of YOUR wallet?

By the way, what makes you so sure that MY wallet has less money in it than YOUR wallet? Because I have empathy with the plague of the poor?

This is a BIG assumption! I may not have a GEN in front of my name, but it doesn't mean that I am (or every was!) on welfare!

His point is that you want force others to pay more (ie the "rich") through higher taxes to support programs that you (but not others persay) support.

 

[Openmind]

His point is that you want force others to pay more (ie the "rich") through higher taxes to support programs that you (but not others persay) support.

Apparently, only 27% of the people disagree with me.

so, does that mean that those 27% should have THEIR "rights" met over the other 73%?

What happens to the "rights" of the other 73%?

 

[BigRob]

Apparently, only 27% of the people disagree with me.

If 73% of people wanted to end free speech, does that make it right?

so, does that mean that those 27% should have THEIR "rights" met over the other 73%?

What happens to the "rights" of the other 73%?

What rights are you talking about here? Are you saying that you want to raise taxes on some to protect the "rights" of others?

 

[GenSeneca]

so, does that mean that those 27% should have THEIR "rights" met over the other 73%?

You have it all wrong... The 73% are voting to violate the rights of the 27%, while the 27% are voting to NOT have their rights violated.

 

[Openmind]

You have it all wrong... The 73% are voting to violate the rights of the 27%, while the 27% are voting to NOT have their rights violated.

No. Only about 1% is voting to "not have their right violated."

The other 26% are just brainwashed by elitist propaganda. . .because they are not even being asked to pay more taxes. . .however the bottom 50% are facing having THEIR rights to sharing in prosperity taking from them.

I am very sorry, my heart doesn't bleed for the wealthy. It tends to bleed for the poor.

Senator Paul Wellstone said: "We all do better when we all do better."

However, in the last 10 years it has been demonstrated that "We all do worse when the top 1% do better!"

 

[GenSeneca]

No. Only about 1% is voting to "not have their right violated."

The other 26% are just brainwashed by elitist propaganda. . .

The "rich" don't have some special right that the rest of us don't also have, that's what you don't seem to comprehend. Granting government permission to violate the rights of ANY individual, grants government the ability to violate the rights of ALL individuals. Just because they are only targeting the top 1% today, doesn't mean they don't have the ability to target YOU tomorrow.

I am very sorry, my heart doesn't bleed for the wealthy. It tends to bleed for the poor.

I stand up for the rights of the individual and since we're all individuals, I draw no distinctions between rich or poor, black or white, theist or atheist, the individual is always the smallest minority and must be protected. Therefore I cannot, in good conscience, support policies of discrimination against ANY minority.

However, in the last 10 years it has been demonstrated that "We all do worse when the top 1% do better!"

What would we gain if they too were also losing their shirts? You might "feel" better if they too were to lose everything but the country would be even worse off than it is already without that top 1% to shoulder 40% of the tax burden.