|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Nov 14, 2008 14:42:22 GMT -5
Also of note from Sussman's broadcast last night was audio of Rahm "F**k the Republicans" Emmanuel describing in vague detail how members of this "force" would be trained (including physical conditioning) for three months, maybe more and that service would be compulsory for 18-25 year olds. He closed one of his remarks by saying that for those who were hestitant to not worry as it would be a "circle of love".
Well guess what.... in psychiatric in patient care, potentially violent situations are diffused by staff surrounding the patient in what has long been deemed as a "show of force" so that the patient understands that no matter how they might act out that they will be contained and controlled. Over the past few years the APA and APC have morphed that "show of force" into a "circle of love".
So what, exactly did Rahm "F**k the Republicans" Emmanuel really mean by his comment?
The world wonders.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Nov 14, 2008 14:47:04 GMT -5
And for the record... post Katrina, NOLA Mayor Ray "School Bus" Nagin and the NOLA Chief of Police at the time, P. Edwin Compass, ordered all firearms in the parish be confiscated. Other parishes followed suit.
Since then they have all been found in United States District Court to have violated the civil rights of all those whose firearms were confiscated. The State of Louisiana has since enacted a state law which forbids government from ever doing that again. And last year Governor Schwarzenegger signed a similar law here in California.
But who is to say what some "civilian national security force" acting with the full weight and authority of the federal government might do?
Barack isn't telling us, is he?
|
|
|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Nov 14, 2008 14:59:32 GMT -5
So what's next Max, you're going to tell me that Brooks Jackson is really Bill Ayers writing under his nom de plume? ;D You wanna play TYPICAL leftist ..no facts, deny facts put words into other peoples mouths ? Wow I thought you were "slightly" better than your commie brethren here at this forum. But alas you are NO DIFFERENT. Did I say that? ( you will be smited) Or did I say Brooks has no more insight into the situation than you or I? And that his analysis is merely HIS Opinion of HIS interpretation..? Did I lay out succinctly FACTS about ANNENBERG POLITICAL "FACT" Check..? Yes , yes I did. Can you refute them.... No , No you cannot. So in typical loser leftist form, you use play number one. "Attempt" to discredit. In this instance you're attempting to make me look like a "conspiracy" theorist. Sorry you lose facts are facts. Dispute the FACTS...would ya? Oh wait you can't. I will wait for more subterfuge out of you and your 2 pals. Why SCRUB the oh so "innocent" reference? Are you THAT HIGH on Obamaid? You cannot SEE ANYTHING? |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 14, 2008 14:59:29 GMT -5
Man, I hate the idea of a civilian national security force. It is plain un-American. I fear what may occur, not just on the part of the security force and their actions, but the reprisals that will be exacted against such a force.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Nov 14, 2008 15:15:10 GMT -5
Interesting tid bit:
One of the mistakes that Obama opponents kept engaging in during the election was to make exaggerated or not 100% legalistically formulated claims (e.g., "palling around"). The MSM then jumped on the exaggerated part of those statements in order to draw attention away from the parts that were true.
And, Brooks Jackson of FactCheck uses that technique in his discussion of Rep. Paul Broun's remarks about Obama's "civilian national security force": factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html
Jackson quotes the Obama speech as I did here, and ends with:
Does that sound like a force that could kick down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a Gulag or concentration camp? You decide.
Now, to show that Brooks Jackson is little more than an Obama-supporting hack and "Fact Check" can't be trusted, here are some questions that Jackson doesn't even ask:
1. Where is the statement from the BHO campaign describing specifically what's in the CNSF, whether the CNSF is a coherent organization or just an umbrella term? A spokesman saying it's a "civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts" isn't enough. We need a detailed plan.
2. Obama said the CNSF would be "just as well-funded" as the U.S. military, which gets around a half a trillion dollars per year. Doesn't Obama's statement go well beyond "expansive... and exaggerated" as Jackson says?
3. What happens when Obama's CNSF returns home? Are there circumstances under which they could be activated here? Are there circumstances under which they could be used to push Obama's political aims? For instance, to engage in the strong-arm tactics that he's encouraged his supporters to use?
Those questions and more are left unanswered by Jackson, who instead simply serves as a reflexive defender of Barack Obama rather than a fact checker.
After 30 years as a reporter he eventually became the first director of Annenberg Political Fact Check, an outpost of the University of Pennsylvania's School of Public Policy, in 2003
Who succeeded him I wonder?
Convenient.
Liberals BELIEVE WITH ALL THEIR HEARTS things like "rigged voting machines" "911 inside job" "GWB HAND Falsified Intel".
Yet it's CRAZY to think factcheck is just like MSNBC when it comes to the people responsible for their paychecks.....
You keep buying..
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Nov 14, 2008 15:19:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess it was your turn to cross that line you all like so much.
I actually laugh at such stuff since I know my intentions, and my thoughts are balanced, yours?
I am simply stating that I will not jump on any band wagon that is circling for a shoot out. I will see what develops, good grief we haven't even had the Inauguration yet and already Obama has ruined our country. And, furthermore do you hear me raving that Obama has a beautiful fairy dust plan, and that I know personally it's the only solution, cuz he's soooo Obama, and dazzling too. (laughing)
Some of the comments posted lately are alarmist without fact. Now if you are saying I'm on the "left" because I will wait to see what the outline of his intentions are, and do have an initial read based on his speech (but waiting for action) then, well, guess I am one of "those people." I prefer logic over panic, and YES even over emotion, and I don't ever like to assume all is lost until I KNOW as much.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Nov 14, 2008 15:22:07 GMT -5
Again I NEVER Said Obama has Ruined ANYTHING.
Just please debate the FACTS.
FACT he made the speech.
FACT he said some stuff that COULD BE construed as scary shit, to ANYONE who ACTUALLY LOVE THIS AMERICA.
Answer me ONE question..just one.
WHY did they SCRUB the speech?
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Nov 14, 2008 15:22:33 GMT -5
And, by the way Max, smiting someone for an honest opinion is anti-American. Remember Free Speech? We are ALLentitled to our opinions, and I don't dole them out unless someone is extremely rude, and inappropriate. You smite me, expect it in return.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Nov 14, 2008 15:25:14 GMT -5
I'm not smiting for your OPINION unless your OPINION is that I am going to say something crazy about Bill Ayers being Brooks Jackson?
You are being smited for putting words in my mouth and trying to paint me a conspiracy theorist.
When all I did was provide you FACTS about Annenburg Political "fake"check.
Are you high?
Your outright REFUSAL to ACKNOWLEDGE ANSWER OR DEBATE FACTS , yes makes you one of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Nov 14, 2008 15:29:36 GMT -5
Max, my point has consistently been WE DON"T KNOW WHY it has been so difficult to find a full text speech. You don't, I don't etc. So, then, why assume the worst???
Do not be fooled by my posts, I am fully aware that politicians can lead us down a dark path, I know people are misguided, and I have never once said we shouldn't be cautious, I really haven't had much of a chance to explain that, nor really wanted to expound on it much since you all are so busy stereotyping me, writing my thoughts for me, thinking for me...
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Nov 14, 2008 15:38:41 GMT -5
Max, I don't pray to FactCheck.org, unfortunately it was the only site SO FAR that I could find that had any information on this subject, and frankly I thought Brooks Jackson did a good job of trying to dispel the Hitler worries.
I was expecting a comment like yours regarding Annenberg, and FactCheck and how we can't trust their information. It is so predictable, don't you see that? If you can give me a site you trust I will go there and dig up what I can, then post it.
Funny how a few months ago FactCheck was an acceptable site, now it's tainted. Because...
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 14, 2008 16:59:05 GMT -5
I actually laugh at such stuff since I know my intentions, and my thoughts are balanced, yours? What?   ;D |
|
;D