National Security (Full Version)

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



Message

Kirata -> National Security (11/1/2008 6:17:19 PM)

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.
 
 
 



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 6:25:08 PM)

Sounds like he means a errm what do you call it oh yes "National guard."
 
You all have your guns anyway so you are half way there all you need next is someone to shoot.



pahunkboy -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 6:28:48 PM)

I d0nt want the government to fix any more problems!

but ya know- when bernacki spoke,  we bowed at his feet.   you dont honestly think that one or the other[mccain or obama] would not bow to those forces?



Kirata -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 6:29:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

Sounds like he means a errm what do you call it oh yes "National guard."

Sounds like you errm don't know what you're talking about.
 
The National Guard is a reserve force of the US Army.
 
K.
 
 



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 6:35:32 PM)


You show an tiny extract of a speech and you read all kinds of things into it? Get a grip is the best advise for paranoia. What exactly was you talking about this time, a possible police state if Obama wins?
 



candystripper -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 6:37:45 PM)

Well, from what I read, which admittedly were only exerpts from the speech, Obama wants to expand both AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps, as well as offer incentives to high school and college aged people to perform community service.  Apparently McCain has similar, though less optimistic, goals.
 
I didn't find it alarming when I read the what he said in context...but man, that You Tube outake is scarey.  It sounds as if he wants the nutters in the 'militias' around Idaho to start taking over!
 
http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/il/articles/obama_outlines_plan_for_national_service.html
 
By the way, the speech was given back in the summer....so why the alarm bells months later?
 
candystripper  [sm=pole.gif]



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 6:40:11 PM)

The TA is much like the national guard made up of dedicated civilian part timers, sounds to me the speech was about better funding for that national guard but it's hard to judge from a twenty second clip don't you think?



BlackPhx -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 6:40:11 PM)

They are..and many have been shipped over seas, leaving the POLICE Force, the FBI, NSA The Coast Guard and Homeland Security to guard our coastlines and handle security. Both the Coast Guard and the Police Force are hurting budget wise and it is a sad commentary that Gangs, Drug Dealers and crooks have better armament, equipment and vest than the Police Force does.

He's right. They do need to be stronger and better funded. Maybe then we could call for the police and not get a busy signal or a we will get a car there as soon as possible.

poenkitten



pahunkboy -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 6:41:15 PM)

lol- abit late to worry about police state tactic in the USA>   LOLOL



Kirata -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 6:42:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

You show an tiny extract of a speech and you read all kinds of things into it? Get a grip is the best advise for paranoia. What exactly was you talking about this time, a possible police state if Obama wins?

Try to focus on the question mark at the end of the sentence. I have no freaking idea what he means. I just know he's talking stuff that could mean anything, and doesn't sound to me like anything good. If you know what he's talking about, say so.

K.
 



DomKen -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 6:42:21 PM)

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.



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 6:48:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Try to focus on the question mark at the end of the sentence. I have no freaking idea what he means. I just know he's talking stuff that could mean anything, and doesn't sound to me like it means anything good. If you know what he's talking about, say so. If you don't know, let's have less abusive and irrelevant comments.
 
K.

The question you asked seemed rhetorical to me I'm more interested in why you asked it.
 
Sorry you felt my response was abusive.



Kirata -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 6:50:34 PM)

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.
 



Kirata -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 6:58:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

The question you asked seemed rhetorical to me I'm more interested in why you asked it.

No, it wasn't rhetorical. But your interest in why I asked may be paranoid. I answered that question in the post you are responding to.

Note: I edited the post to remove the peckish comment, and again for grammar (it's a habit).
 
K.



celticlord2112 -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 7:05:27 PM)

quote:

all you need next is someone to shoot.

That's never hard to find.  Trick is to find the justification for the shooting (always better to have that BEFORE you pull the trigger.  Saves money on lawyers and vaseline later).



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 7:09:53 PM)

So I hear.



slvemike4u -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 7:10:13 PM)

They get vaseline in the Big House?



celticlord2112 -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 7:11:40 PM)

Beats me.  I've always had my justifications in order.



SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 7:13:35 PM)

Bad fashion sense would be one of my justifications.



corysub -> RE: National Security (11/1/2008 7:14:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

You show an tiny extract of a speech and you read all kinds of things into it? Get a grip is the best advise for paranoia. What exactly was you talking about this time, a possible police state if Obama wins?

Try to focus on the question mark at the end of the sentence. I have no freaking idea what he means. I just know he's talking stuff that could mean anything, and doesn't sound to me like anything good. If you know what he's talking about, say so.

K.
 


I found the rest of the speech.  "Words, just words"!  ....   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdF5TQIv1fU&feature=related



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.589844E-02