RE: National Security

RE: National Security (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Kirata -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 7:15:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper I didn't find it alarming when I read the what he said in context...but man, that You Tube outake is scarey... By the way, the speech was given back in the summer....so why the alarm bells months later? Hi candystripper, I only just saw it, that's all. But Obama seems to be able to get people going along with him in an affirming state of mind, and then... wham, something like that comes out and nobody in the crowd even blinks. More recently, declining to agree with his tax plan was "selfishness". It's starting to give me the creeps. K.

Sanity -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 7:18:22 PM)
There aren't any militias in Idaho any more than there are anywhere else. You must be thinking of the street gangs in Chicago. quote: It sounds as if he wants the nutters in the 'militias' around Idaho to start taking over!

slvemike4u -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 8:05:08 PM)
Priceless,simply priceless.

DomKen -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 9:12:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're also taking 20 seconds of a July 4th speech out of context. Excuse me, but I am not taking the quote out of context. Whoever posted the video did that. Whether or not the context would comfort me is another matter. Would you care to provide clarification based on your knowledge of it? K. The entire speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw The section in question starts at about 14 minutes in. He's talking about expanding things like the foreign service, peace corps and americorps. Nothing sinister at all unless you take 20 seconds out of context.

thishereboi -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 9:18:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Call me paranoid "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've gotta have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." ~Barack Obama An internal military-strength state security force? K. You're paranoid. You're also taking 20 seconds of a July 4th speech out of context. Did he post the you tube video? Sounded to me, like he was asking what the man meant.

thishereboi -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 9:20:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity There aren't any militias in Idaho any more than there are anywhere else. You must be thinking of the street gangs in Chicago. quote: It sounds as if he wants the nutters in the 'militias' around Idaho to start taking over! Michigan has one, and from what I hear, it's one of the best.

Kirata -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 10:15:05 PM)
Thanks for the link. That's why I ask questions. Appreciate it. K.

Owner59 -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 10:35:33 PM)
Translation... We need a police/civilian law enforcement effort coupled with the aid of military power. In other words,the total reliance of military power to fight al-queda, a Bush policy,is not enough to achieve our goal. The military was never meant to be an anti-terrorist force. They are trained to ground pound and take territory,fight armies and occupy their homeland. They are not trained to find-hunt-kill terrorists or to do nation building. If Obama takes office,the war on terror will take a new and affective turn and he will get and kill bin-laden .And the war on terror won`t be a political whore to be continually used and abused, as Bush did.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875