Obama supporters needed
I, for one, am looking forward to being able to critique a liberal president for the next four years. (Prediction: Obama is not re-elected in 2012. Unless Sarah Palin runs against him. Time for the "high right" to re-engage and get their candidate nominated.)
So, I'm looking for someone to help me understand what the President elect had in mind when he said this:
Um...what? Did I just hear what I thought I heard? A national civilian force that's just as strong and well funded as the US military to engage in national security issues in the US? First, aren't Democrats against such bloated military spending as already exists without funding another force? Second, are you telling me that a government administration that will be tougher on private on gun ownership wants to have a government force just as powerful as its military--i.e., that carries guns? Isn't that what the second amendment was developed to be against?
So, I'd appreciate some Obama supporters to tell me what they think he means. Please.
So, I'm looking for someone to help me understand what the President elect had in mind when he said this:
Um...what? Did I just hear what I thought I heard? A national civilian force that's just as strong and well funded as the US military to engage in national security issues in the US? First, aren't Democrats against such bloated military spending as already exists without funding another force? Second, are you telling me that a government administration that will be tougher on private on gun ownership wants to have a government force just as powerful as its military--i.e., that carries guns? Isn't that what the second amendment was developed to be against?
So, I'd appreciate some Obama supporters to tell me what they think he means. Please.
posted by Aaron Perry at
11:39 AM
11 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
I would never say Barack Obama is an idiot. I think Obama is quite intelligent and charismatic, and makes quite a bit of sense, even when I disagree with him. For all of these reasons, I don't know why this statement wasn't clarified and I'm needing some other thoughts on it.
AP, I've tagged you in a Meme. Please see my blog to see what you are to do.
He really is intelligent, yes, which is why I find comments like the one you posted about baffling. I just thoroughly disagree with him on about 98% of his ideas. This is the first I saw him make that statement, and I have watched it again and again to try to figure out what he could possibly mean. And frankly, I'm completely lost. I know someone who worked on his campaign. I might direct her your way...
It almost sounds like he's for government funding of militias? Maybe that's his view on gang violence and crime. Bring the gangs under the control of the government and send them out to shoot down threats within the US with the government's blessing. I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic, but that's the scenerio I get in my head when I hear that...
Hi, this is Kayla's friend whom she was referring to.
I can't comment on the video as I'm unable to see them on work computers and I don't get online anywhere but at work. What I can say is that Obama has spoken in great length of increasing aid to students pursuing higher education and has suggested rewarding public service. Obama, and myself to be honest, believe in community organization (much to Palin's dismay) and people's responsibility to each other.
This actual video, though, I can't comment on because I can't see it, and your description of it confuses me too. Barack Obama is, in my opinion, a very articulate man but he's human and may have made a confusing statement... lord knows we've had our share of those in the past 8 years! :)
Jamie
On his web site he states the need for funding in many civilian areas. Namely, protecting borders, airports, nuclear plants as well as better support/funding for Disaster First Responders (http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/homeland_security/).
I'd be pretty worried about a government funded militia, but the force he mentioned could be as "powerful and strong" in its defensive capabilities at home as the US Military is abroad offensively.
Clay, what do you have in mind to distinguish between powerful defensive capabilities as opposed to powerful offensive ones? It seems to me the only difference is how the power is employed... I'd only be really and truly scared (and I'm far from this) if Obama said this civilian force would be secret, which is why I'm looking for clarification.
I'd say if security in vital places (public transportation, US Port, borders, nuclear sites) were staffed, trained and equiped the country would be safer. Same for first responders such as firemen, medical crews and police.
It seems the current strategy against the war on terror is to take it to the 'enemy', no matter what country they are in, and stop trouble before it reaches the US. If the homeland were secure in important areas and ready for trouble that comes (not that it is welcomed, of course) then that would make the US more secure. It could have been a comment against the current state of homeland security in light of the billions spent on the offensive overseas.
That could be what he meant, but agencies already exist for those areas. Military already protects some nuclear plants; borders already have officers. If he wants to add more security, then say that. But that's not a powerful, strong civilian force.
But if what you suggest is what he has in mind, it certainly is a change from the Bush doctrine, but if Americans don't want soldiers in the streets in other countries, I'm not sure they'll want an armed 'civilian force' that's just as powerful as this force in their own.
I can't imagine Obama wants this either, which is why I want some clarification. Thanks for your perspective. :)
Aaron,
Well, I'm baffled. I didn't know he said this. Now I'm questioning my vote.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home