15 Comments Add your own

• 1. DingDong  |  November 3rd, 2008 at 9:10 pm

  This is why you should vote republican.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwaAVJITx1Y

  What is a “”civilian national security force”, as strong as our military? What is this the Obama equivalent to the SS. Last chance to get a clue. Obviously democrats don’t if you even hang with Satan, as long you will give them something and talk a good game.

• 2. Craig Knauss  |  November 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm

  “…the Obama equivalent to the SS…” That’s cute. The Nazis were far rightwingers, you moron. Your kind of people. And what’s with this Satan crap? Trying to show us just how pathetic you really are? Most of us had already figured it out. It’s because of clowns like you that most of us are going to vote Democratic. Amen, brother!

• 3. DingDong  |  November 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm

  Did you listen to the comment about, about the ”civilian national security force”? Seems as all his mentors are communists, Marxist, racists or terrorists. Come on, Bill Ayers wanted reeducation camps and eliminate those who did not want to conform. Hitler was a fascist the main focus of fascism is collectivism and populism, which seems to go pretty well for your man. So as you can see Craig, you the most pathetic idiot around. You obviously know nothing of history. Now Craig, go drink your kool-aid.

• 4. DingDong  |  November 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 pm

  I forgot, for our Jewish friends. Obama has no political courage.

  http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/11/gerald-nadler-c.html

• 5. Orlando Clay  |  November 3rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm

  DingDong, your choo-choo has definitely left its tracks. Your mind is completely scrambled on a toxic ring-wing cocktail of hate, paranoia, histrionics, hyperbole, hysteria, and irrationality. It’s people like you who give sociopaths a bad name.

• 6. bannernews  |  November 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 pm

  Bill Ayers for Secretary of Reeducation. Camp #1 has a cot in it with your name all over it Ding Dang. Was that a knock on your door?

• 7. swamprat  |  November 3rd, 2008 at 11:05 pm

  ding. Wipe the foam off your mouth before you go to vote.

• 8. Craig Knauss  |  November 4th, 2008 at 12:21 am

  Ding Dung,

  A “civilian national security force” could constitute the National Guard. The Guard consists of civilian soldiers in case you missed that point. But a horse’s A like you would never figure that out. Would you? Ever think that Obama might want to bring the Guard home so they can do what they were intended to do? That is PROTECT AMERICA. Has that ever occurred to you? Of course not. And I do know the difference between Marxism, fascism, etc. Do you? It sure doesn’t sound like it. Now go change your diaper. You’ll have plenty to cry about on Nov. 5.

• 9. echo4charlie  |  November 4th, 2008 at 9:30 am

  There were a lot of people at the polling place in my precinct. That’s a good thing to see, regardless of who they’re voting for. I waited nearly 40-45 minutes to cast my ballot this morning.

  Well, whoever wins, we’ll (as a nation) get what we asked for, good or bad.

• 10. echo4charlie  |  November 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am

  Illinois was a “Blue” state before my ballot was even cast this morning (my guess is that it turned “Blue” at 5:01 am). McCain doesn’t stand a chance in Illinois, but, we’ll see how things go elsewhere.

  I think he’ll win Florida……………….but the rest is still “up for grabs”………..

• 11. Milton Waddams  |  November 4th, 2008 at 9:50 am

  There are some who would argue that peaceful aid missions do more to support our National Security than boondoggles like Iraq. So perhaps Obama was refering to greater funding and participation in groups like the Peace Corps. He has emphasized national and community service and talked about college tuition for Peace Corp volunteers. Makes a lot of sense if you ask me.

• 12. echo4charlie  |  November 4th, 2008 at 10:27 am

  Barack Obama’s exact words were; “We can not continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve national security objectives that 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.”

  This is a comment that he certainly owes a clear distinct definition of exactly what he means. The National Guard is part of the Army (and, of which is part of our military).

  He’s saying that we need a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful (as the military), just as strong (as the military), and just as well funded (as the military). He can’t be referring to the National guard in this statement, nor the peace corps (who is an unarmed charity organization).

  This could be pertinent to an idea of state militia, but, I doubt it. It sounds like it is wanted to be a separate entity. And, although the description should make us think “Police”, that doesn’t seem to be his aim, either, with this comment. Police are government employees, and not considered civilian.

  This is certainly a curious comment, and deserves further explanation. I’m not going to jump to conclusions, but, the way it was stated (listed verbatim above) doesn’t necessarily sound like a good thing.

  What’s to stop a militant civilian organization as such, being as powerful (well trained), as strong (in number and weaponry), and as well funded (if not better) from pushing their agenda further?

  Concealed carry? I think that is a better option than an organized militant civilian combat force acting as separate entity from our military.

  If that actually is what he’s referring to, I would say that is a dangerous proposition.

• 13. Milton Waddams  |  November 4th, 2008 at 10:50 am

  E4C: “What’s to stop a militant civilian organization as such, being as powerful (well trained), as strong (in number and weaponry), and as well funded (if not better) from pushing their agenda further?”
  We already have what you are refering to, they are called Blackwater.

  Now, here’s something to consider in terms you may not think because of your background.
  Just as powerful — many say that aid makes a more powerful impression on the third world than flexing military might.

  Just as strong — Just as many volunteers as enlisted men in the armed forces.

  Just as well funded — This one doesn’t need explanation.

  The problem Charlie is that your are looking at what he said through a military lens. The words he used, powerful, strength and funding do not have to be military oriented. Security doesn’t imply military. Are we not secure if we are at peace? Working to establish peace and the improvement of the lives of people in the third world will do FAR more for our National Security than attacking every country that might pose a threat.

• 14. DingDong  |  November 4th, 2008 at 11:47 am

  Milt and Craig are drunk on the kool-aid. Then would Obama just not say “I want to strengthen the peace corp”? There are 1.5 million military. He wants a completely new structure of 1.5 million people?

  Guess what, the radical Islamic people in some of these countries could give a rats behind about humanitarian aid. Their stated objective is either you convert or be killed. You two need to stop living in your 3rd grade world. The peace corp did not end the cold war.

• 15. echo4charlie  |  November 4th, 2008 at 11:56 am

  I see your point. We’ll just have to agree we see it differently, and that’s why Obama will have to further clarify what he means. I hope you’re right, though. If the meaning of that statement turns out to mean something similar to what I interpret it to mean, we’d have a problem that would grow legs and run in its own direction once it grew powerful enough. I’m actually non-partisan, and don’t necessarily agree with republican, democrat, liberal, green, or independent, but, I do believe that our government, regardless, need to keep their hands on the reigns. For everyone’s best interest.

  Blackwater, well, I see them as nothing but unlawful combatants. Mercenaries. I see them as doing more harm than good. They are more than just private security consultants/bodyguards. They truly are unlawful combatants hired by private industry, and an unregulated militant force. We can’t have that over there, especially while we are trying to stabilize that area.

  A lot of valuable, highly trained soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are leaving their post at the end of their enlistment to hire on for 6-month rotations with groups like Blackwater that pay six-figure salaries. I don’t like that. It’s competing with and for our military. We need those resources working with our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, husbands, wives, grandfathers and grandmothers who are serving in our military in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as around the globe in every climb and place. They need to be watching their backs to bring them home safe.

  I have acquaintances who have gone the route of private security contractors, but, I won’t even consider it. I see them as unlawful combatants in their current role.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed