1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

This one statement by Barack Hussein Obama should worry everyone.

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by JBond, Mar 30, 2009.

  1. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,721 Messages
    32 Likes Received
    'We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.' - B. Obama on July 2, 2008 in Colorado Springs

    This statement is frightening to me on so many different levels. What are the Obama national security objectives that would require an duplicate military? Is he going to double military spending or is he going to cut current spending in half to fund his personal army? Neither choice is a good one. What role does Obama envision for his "civilian national security force"?

    So far Obama has behaved like a fascist. From his punitive wealth redistribution plans to his nationalization of major corporations right down his personal enemies list of civilians he is behaving just as many of the most evil destructive men in history have. They all started out doing similar things.

    Does Obama's demand for his own personal army, his own brown shirts, bother everyone else as much as it does me?
  2. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    60,044 Messages
    3,280 Likes Received
    I am all for an Obama Hitler youth army. It would be interesting to watch a bunch of little Aryan terrors who hate anything other than whites, being led by a dirty antichrist muslim black man that hates all whites.

    I mean it has a little of a Manson helter skelter theme to it.

    <---Loading up Beatles on Ipod.
  3. Yeagermeister

    Yeagermeister Active Member

    47,576 Messages
    9 Likes Received
    I'll admit it does worry me. Isn't that what the police is for?
  4. Joe Rod

    Joe Rod When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong

    8,344 Messages
    496 Likes Received
    He's Da Debil!
  5. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,721 Messages
    32 Likes Received
    Lets not forget these sweet children. Brainwashing always works best when you get them young.

    [IMG]
  6. masomenos

    masomenos Less is more

    5,971 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I thought that I took care of this during the election cycle?

    http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2429753&postcount=8

  7. DFWJC

    DFWJC Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    22,421 Messages
    1,897 Likes Received
    That is one VERY creepy statement.
  8. Joe Rod

    Joe Rod When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong

    8,344 Messages
    496 Likes Received
  9. Hoofbite

    Hoofbite Well-Known Member

    32,242 Messages
    1,972 Likes Received
  10. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,721 Messages
    32 Likes Received

    a more modern State Department and "civilian national security force" that could "deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military."

    "If we've got a State Department or personnel that have been trained just to be behind walls, and they have not been equipped to get out there alongside our military and engage, then we don't have the kind of national security apparatus that is needed," he said. "That has to be planned for; it has to be paid for. Those personnel have to be trained. And they all have to be integrated."

    What do the items you posted above, have to do with what I posted?

    'We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

    You seem believe Obama is going to beef up the State Department to match the level of power and strength of the United States military and strangely enough you seem OK with that. Is this is just a little revamp of the State Department? US military funding is slated to be about a trillion dollars in 2009. Does the State Department need an additional trillion dollars to do the crappy job it does? Where is this magic trillion dollars going to come from?

    If you believe the military does not have agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists you're crazy. Of course they have them. So why the redundancy? Why do we need two Armies with the same capabilities and funding? Or does Obama have plans to get rid of one? If he did get rid of one, I wonder which one it would be?

    He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, youthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.
  11. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,721 Messages
    32 Likes Received
    So, you are saying I made it up? It's not factual? Obama did not say it? Are you one of those special bowlers Obama is so fond of?

    Why don't you believe Obama? He is the one that said it.
  12. Hoofbite

    Hoofbite Well-Known Member

    32,242 Messages
    1,972 Likes Received

    His point was that this has already been discussed. In fact, I'm sure there are multiple threads on it.
  13. Joe Rod

    Joe Rod When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong

    8,344 Messages
    496 Likes Received
    I LOVE Bowling, it awesome! I'm just a fan of taking things in context is all killer.
  14. JBond

    JBond Well-Known Member

    6,721 Messages
    32 Likes Received
    It's all open to interpretation. After having watched team Obama in action the last few months, I thought that particular statement would and should be viewed in a different light than the one the Democrat party is shining on it.

    Many times Obama says exactly what he intends. It's when when Obama says things so outrageous that even Dems say "no, that can't be what he means," I really worry.

    When he says he is in favor of a Marxist form of wealth redistribution, I and many others took him at his word. When he claimed he is going to build an army 250,000 strong because our military can't achieve whatever Barry wants achieved, I believe it. When he says he will bestow his new personal army with the same power strength and funding as our traditional military, I believe him. Why do you believe Obama is lying?

    ps, I like your little squid with the limit one free hat. He reminds me of my neighbor with the car on the cinder-blocks.
  15. Joe Rod

    Joe Rod When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong

    8,344 Messages
    496 Likes Received

    I really don't see where you can take his discussion points and come to the conclusion that you have come to, which I would assume you would say the same of me. Obama's comments to me did not in any way indicate what you are getting at. To you, they raised a very big red flag. Now that I realize that the interpretation of the words and not the words are the root of your argument, I will agree with you that you have an opinion and are passionate about it. I don't get it, but it is pretty entertaining reading!

    The sig is from the Squidbillies, pretty funny little show on the Cartoon network that I catch from time to time when insomnia kicks in and I have read every article possible on this forum.
  16. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    28,134 Messages
    1,200 Likes Received
    don't we have a national guard to compliment our military?
  17. QB 09 2 81

    QB 09 2 81 New Member

    10 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    What frightens ME is people who make claims like these.

    #1 a 3% increase of the income tax for the top earners in the Country constitutes "punitive wealth redistribution". Funny, the top tax rate was 39% or more for years prior to George W lowering them, and we still had "rich" people. In fact, the top marginal tax rate between 1942 and 1963 averaged 90%!! During the Reagan administration the top income tax rate fluctuated from 70% when he took office, to 50% from 1982-1986, down to 38.5% in '87, but we still had wealthy people in this Country.

    http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

    If you wanna talk "socialism" or "wealth redistribution", let's talk about the "social security" tax that takes 14.2 of my gross income and redistributes it to others! Seems to me that was started LONG before Barack Obama was born.

    #2 "his nationalization of major corporations". Excuse me? You mean Bush's Nationalization of major corporations? Most of the "nationalization" you speak of took place BEFORE President Obama took office. FWIW he has consistently said that he does NOT want to nationalize the banks, even though Lindsey Graham (and other "republicans") have said that's exactly what we should be doing! It seems that today's neo-cons are the real "Marxists" at work in our federal government!

    #3 "his personal enemies list of civilians he is behaving just as many of the most evil destructive men in history have. They all started out doing similar things" Once again, this statement fits the actions of the previous administration much better than it fits the current one so far!

    In the end, what I see from those who want to try to make these "arguments" is without a doubt, putting PARTY over Country!

    For the last 7 years we were told that we had to "support" our President in a time of "war"....even though he had actually caused most of the problems we have been, and still are, facing.

    Now those same "support the President" types are actively attempting to demonize the current President, and certainly going out of their way to show that they do NOT support him, or even want him to be successful, even though much of what he has done/suggested to date has been far MORE conservative than much of what the previous administration did!

    If you think that George W Bush was a political "conservative" with regards to the Constitution you are either almost completely unaware of what that document actually says, or are being intentionally obtuse IMHO.

    By the same token, if you claim that Barack Obama is a political "liberal", based on what he's said and done so far, you are very wrong indeed.

    So far he's shown much more of a desire to adhere to the limitations imposed on the Executive Branch/federal government by our Constitution than the previous administration did!

    Much ado about nothing seem to be the current mantra of the "republican" party.
  18. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    AmeriCorps just got a lot of money.
    However,yes Obama did mention that and he means it.
    To create a civil force with as much power as the military.
    I'm not making this up.
  19. arglebargle

    arglebargle Well-Known Member

    5,010 Messages
    129 Likes Received
    Some of you resemble the 'Boy who cried Wolf'. If you were to actually ever come across a real wolf, no one will believe you, because of your previous rantings.
  20. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Be honest with me,have you seen the footage of Obama and later Rahm Emanuel talking about a civil force?

    [youtube]Tt2yGzHfy7s[/youtube]

Share This Page