Does anybody else find this alarming?

[Freiwillige]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

Why is this not making national headlines?

[Etienne]

1. Because it's six months old.

2. Because it's not interesting. It's a twenty second snippet of a speech, there's no context - he's probably talking about the department of Homeland Security, the FBI, or local police forces. It doesn't scream "UN directed civillian oppression force" to me, sorry.

[Platapus]

1. Because it's six months old.

2. Because it's not interesting. It's a twenty second snippet of a speech, there's no context - he's probably talking about the department of Homeland Security, the FBI, or local police forces. It doesn't scream "UN directed civillian oppression force" to me, sorry.

:yeah:

[UnderseaLcpl]

I don't blame you for being alarmed. He's made a lot of little comments that sound alarming, most of which escape notice. The first time I heard that one, I thought; "Red Guard".

I still have no idea what he was talking about, though.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

Why is this not making national headlines?

Basically, Etienne answered your question with a perfectly summed-up answer.

And it really is a pretty cheap shot to use a snippet of a speech he gave that's less than thirty seconds long without even giving a link to the full thing as justification for starting a controversy.

[Schöneboom]

I also heard Rahm Emanuel talk about the same plan, re a "mandatory volunteer" civil defense service. There's a podcast recording of him talking about it, if anyone wants to search & listen. It sounds kinda innocuous, like emergency response training -- which actually would be desirable for major disasters that might swamp our professional first responders.

In any case, if the Obama Brigade ever does come into existence, the clever thing might to infiltrate them, take advantage of any training & equipment they provide, & scoop up any useful intel. Then, if the gov't ever tries to use this against the people (like the E. German Stasi), they might be in for a surprise.

At this point, though, I'd say we have enough to worry about as it is!

[August]

I've long believed that a short period of national service benefits both the individual and the nation. Military service, peace corps, conservation work, heck just picking up trash from the side of the road, just as long as it beneficial to the community.

People tend to hold dear that for which they have toiled to create and maintain.

[Freiwillige]

Forced volunteerism? America has no shortage of volunteers when the need arises. Obamas plan for mandatory volunteer duty is just plain wrong. We have always been a country of volunteers and failing in that we had the draft but thats only used in times of war.

[Platapus]

Forced volunteerism? America has no shortage of volunteers when the need arises. Obamas plan for mandatory volunteer duty is just plain wrong. We have always been a country of volunteers and failing in that we had the draft but thats only used in times of war.

At what point during the clip you posted did Obama say anything about forced volunteerism?

Do you have a citation for any plan of President Obama to have a mandatory volunteer duty program?

[Skybird]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/02/obamas-remarks-on-service/tab/print/

[Platapus]

Skyibird, was that citation in response to my question?

If it was, it still did not indicate any mandatory volunteer programs that Obama is proposing. There was a lot of asking people to serve though. And that is how it should be.

[Tchocky]

I think Sky was linking to the full speech in question, so that we have it in-thread as opposed to selective quotations like the first post.

[Platapus]

I think Sky was linking to the full speech in question, so that we have it in-thread as opposed to selective quotations like the first post.

Ah ok :D

[antikristuseke]

I've long believed that a short period of national service benefits both the individual and the nation. Military service, peace corps, conservation work, heck just picking up trash from the side of the road, just as long as it beneficial to the community.

People tend to hold dear that for which they have toiled to create and maintain.

Agreed. But thinking like this makes you a sochulist!:yep:

[Skybird]

I linked the original speech during which Obama left the script for some sentences, these sentences that are not included in the original script formed the items he later got criticised for in several right-winged blogs and Republican sites. I found an example at American Thinker, and from there found the script of the speech in the Wallstreet Journal.

Nevertheless, this speech and it's content is the context in which his quoted free comments must be seen.

[Platapus]

Thank you for posting the original information. In discussions such as this, it is imperative that everyone has access to the data. :salute:

[Stealth Hunter]

Agreed. But thinking like this makes you a sochulist!:yep:

And socialism is BAD... just because... um... huh...

[Skybird]

I do not like socialism, too. It's just that not everything being called socialism is socialism, and that being social and being socialistic are two very different things.

Give people a good ammount of sense for reality and social responsibility, dear God, but save us from socialism.

[SUBMAN1]

And socialism is BAD... just because... um... huh...

Lets see if you can show the benefits first before you crack a joke.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

Lets see if you can show the benefits first before you crack a joke.

-S

What type of socialism would you like me to focus on for this? Libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, utopian socialism, collective communism, Marxism, reformist socialism, Christian socialism, eco-socialism, labor Zionistic socialism, agrarian socialism . . .?

My guess is you thought all forms of socialism are the same when you asked that question. Unless you're specific on the type of socialism you'd like to focus on, then I quite frankly am not able to answer your question. They're all different.

[Sea Demon]

What type of socialism would you like me to focus on for this? Libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, utopian socialism, collective communism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism . . .?

My guess is you think all forms of socialism are the same when you asked that question. Unless you're specific on the type of socialism you'd like to focus on, then I quite frankly am not able to answer your question. They're all different.

And none of them achieve the unrealistic expectations they set out to do. I wouldn't want to live under any of them. Some of them have proven to be fatal to live in. No thanks. Seriously SH, if you like the concept of the "socialisms" why did you not emigrate to one of the Euro-Socialist states instead of here? Why not now go join one of the "Revolutions" taking place currently in Nicaragua, Cuba, or Venezuela? Can you please answer that? I haven't seen a socialist state in any form I'd wish to live in.

[Stealth Hunter]

And none of them achieve the unrealistic expectations they set out to do. I wouldn't want to live under any of them.

Many concepts of a social democracy, while the doctrine is not openly expressed in the United States through the form of representation by an official party, have been incorporated into American life. Environmentalism, the regulation of businesses with labor rights and consumer protection, multiculturalism, we've got a foreign policy that has spreading democracy as a main goal (also a goal of the Bush administration), and there's also the advocacy of social, civil, and human rights in the country, not to mention the high value of civil liberty.

Really, you do live in a socialist country; a social democracy, but it's socialism nonetheless. Actually, child labor laws are a result of the appeal of social democratic beliefs. The only reason we're not seen as a social democracy is because we like to think and say we're not in any way socialist, instead favoring capitalism and the ideas of a republic. A social democracy can still use some parts of capitalism, however. Don't make the mistake and think it can't.

Some of them have proven to be fatal to live in.

Communism has, but that's why I'm not a communist.

No thanks. Seriously SH, if you like the concept of the "socialisms" why did you not emigrate to one of the Euro-Socialist states instead of here?

Because nations that are officially social democracies are... well- to put it bluntly, non-existent. The US is the next best thing.

Why not now go join one of the "Revolutions" taking place currently in Nicaragua, Cuba, or Venezuela? Can you please answer that?

Because I'm not a communist, I'm a social democrat...

I haven't seen a socialist state in any form I'd wish to live in.

Probably because when people hear the word "socialism", they immediately think of Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim-Jong Il, and communism; when in reality, there are many different forms of socialism.

[Sea Demon]

Really, you do live in a socialist country; a social democracy, but it's socialism nonetheless. Actually, child labor laws are a result of the appeal of social democratic beliefs.

Communism has, but that's why I'm not a communist.


No, the US is not a socialist country. We still have a Constitution, and just need a return to those principles. We are still a Representative Republic. We do have a government that is at this moment very overreaching, has ambitions for statism as policy, and is larger than Constitutionally mandated. And we do have programs that are way overdue for elimination in the public sphere. Nobody said the US doesn't have the right to regulate itself. But there is a tendency for some to want to overregulate and get their hands on things they have no business interacting with. Like financial compensations and such. Regulation should occur where there is a need to ensure consumer or employee safety.

I merely see that as part of the social contract and doesn't imply a "socialist" government. Just like taxes. They must be reasonable , and part of the social contract to ensure that we can run the necessary government functions that are needed and benefit the citizen at large. Not the other 85% of junk passed by corrupt congresses like the current and former. None of that gives you a socialist country. We do see the socialist elements in our nation now going broke or running inefficiently. Social Security is a boondoggle that is going dead broke soon, and Medicare/Medicaid are bloated and totally inefficient. Too bad some people can't learn why they fail.

If you want socialism, you have to truly go where it is? And you have not done that. Seriously, we don't have cradle to grave here yet, nor do I think it's possible within Obama's first term. Nor will he get another if he keeps pushing. If you wanted a more cradle to grave which implies socialism....you should have emigrated to Europe or Canada.

[Sea Demon]

Because I'm not a communist, I'm a social democrat...



Probably because when people hear the word "socialism", they immediately think of Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim-Jong Il, and communism; when in reality, there are many different forms of socialism.

Oh yeah. I need to address this too. Communism and Socialism share many similarities to the point they can be viewed as the same to a different extreme. Both give you the model of producing and distributing goods that are owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. To varying degrees they both seek to enforce a collectivist mindset over resources and people, and they seek to force an unrealistic "equity" system that just isn't workable in any way. Both are also dreadful to basic human freedoms, choices, and human incentive. And neither have produced very high standards of living for regular people despite the glorious propaganda both produce.

[FIREWALL]

@ First post > NOPE

[Stealth Hunter]

No, the US is not a socialist country.

You certainly support and utilize many concepts of it, though.

We still have a Constitution, and just need a return to those principles. We are still a Representative Republic. We do have a government that is at this moment very overreaching, has ambitions for statism as policy, and is larger than Constitutionally mandated.

Hence it's like a social democracy.

And we do have programs that are way overdue for elimination in the public sphere.

Well I'm not going to argue with you on this point since you have a right to your opinion.

Nobody said the US doesn't have the right to regulate itself. But there is a tendency for some to want to overregulate and get their hands on things they have no business interacting with. Like financial compensations and such. Regulation should occur where there is a need to ensure consumer or employee safety.

We have to regulate companies though. They can't be trusted; that's the problem. If you let them have too much freedom, they'll go crazy and abuse it to no end. I agree that consumer and employee safety are definite priorities, but what about false advertising that many of them get away with as a direct result of deregulation? Things like these weight loss products that cause liver failure and cancer later on in life are allowed to be sold because corporations and businesses can slip through loopholes in the system.

It's not right, but it's legal...:nope:

I merely see that as part of the social contract and doesn't imply a "socialist" government. Just like taxes. They must be reasonable , and part of the social contract to ensure that we can run the necessary government functions that are needed and benefit the citizen at large. Not the other 85% of junk passed by corrupt congresses like the current and former. None of that gives you a socialist country.

But would you not agree that they have great impacts and effects on our lives? That's why I think opposite of your opinion. When you step back and see how important they are on living in the United States, it seems to amplify their origin, of the socialist democrat doctrine.

We do see the socialist elements in our nation now going broke or running inefficiently. Social Security is a boondoggle that is going dead broke soon, and Medicare/Medicaid are bloated and totally inefficient. Too bad some people can't learn why they fail.

They're failing because we haven't bothered to amend them to keep up with the changes that have come with the times. Social security worked great for decades and it still works today, just not as well as it once did. The same can be said for Medicare and Medicade, which incidentally are the reasons that 75% of physicians have the ability to go to residency and training schools/programs.

If you want socialism, you have to truly go where it is? And you have not done that.

I am a social DEMOCRAT, and I reside in a country that borrows many ideas from it's doctrine. That's all I've got to say. If I was a communist (which really communism is just a branch of socialism), I'd go to Cuba. If I was a national socialist... well, I'm a little late to find any Nazi countries. But I'm not a communist and I'm not a national socialist.

Seriously, we don't have cradle to grave here yet, nor do I think it's possible within Obama's first term. Nor will he get another if he keeps pushing. If you wanted a more cradle to grave which implies socialism....you should have emigrated to Europe or Canada.

Perhaps I should have. The Euro is worth more than the dollar right now, but Canada isn't even a really country anyway.:haha::O:

[Stealth Hunter]

Oh yeah. I need to address this too. Communism and Socialism share many similarities to the point they can be viewed as the same to a different extreme.

Mainly because communism is a part of socialism, and vice versa (although the concept of mainstream socialism, the first official and original form, has been around for longer than communism, which really didn't come around until Marx wrote his manifesto).

Both give you the model of producing and distributing goods that are owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Depends what type of the socialist system you're looking into. A social democracy discourages a single-party centralized government, seeking out a power of the people forged by the people concept.

To varying degrees they both seek to enforce a collectivist mindset over resources and people, and they seek to force an unrealistic "equity" system that just isn't workable in any way. Both are also dreadful to basic human freedoms, choices, and human incentive. And neither have produced very high standards of living for regular people despite the glorious propaganda both produce.


For communism, these points are absolutely true. Communism's problem is that it relies too heavily on the cooperation of people and their desire to do the right thing and do nothing but live up to the Communist Manifesto, but the problem here is that people are inherently flawed creatures that can be corrupted easily by greed and desire (let alone the fact they can be bastards). For socialism, it again depends on what form of it you're looking at.

[FIREWALL]

Communism works GREAT if your the 10% that's calling all the shots.

The 90% that's doing all the WORK are screwed.

[Skybird]

Communism works GREAT if your the 10% that's calling all the shots.

The 90% that's doing all the WORK are screwed.

Looking at the western and global labour markets, the big business economy and big corportation and chain stores, it is much the same with capitalism, isn't it. Even more these present days.

I always thought that the resulting outcome in reality of communistic planned-economy and capitalistic "free" market economy have much more in common than any of the two finds convenient to admit. esoecially for the proiteering elites it does not make any difference. for them, in both systems the old Orwellian truth from Animal Farm remains true in both ways of running an economy: all people are equal, but some are more equal than the others.

[fatty]

What's the old saying... "under communism, man exploits man; under capitalism, it's just the opposite."

[FIREWALL]

US workers are the highest paid in the world.

@ Skybird Take your BS to the streets of Germany. :hmph:

[Stealth Hunter]

Communism works GREAT if your the 10% that's calling all the shots.

The 90% that's doing all the WORK are screwed.

Exactly.

[Skybird]

US workers are the highest paid in the world.

@ Skybird Take your BS to the streets of Germany. :hmph:
No. Much of it is BS "made in the USA", sweetheart.

[Sailor Steve]

I sometimes wonder whether a properly applied socialism wouldn't be the best thing. But I have two problems:

1) The free market happens by itself, whereas any type of socialism is artificial, i.e. it has to be applied from above, and enforced.

2) Said enforcement always requires giving someone enough power to make it work, and I have yet to see anyone in office I would want to trust with that kind of power.

[FIREWALL]

No. Much of it is BS "made in the USA", sweetheart.


Comeing on to me isn't going to work. :har:

Homey don't play that game.

[Skybird]

You get as much as you give. Become noisy - don't wonder a noisy echo.

[Gorduz]

I'm sorry to offend anyone but I think the general sceptism to socialism in the US comes from some deep cultural heritage that perhaps is hard for europeans to understand. If you want a sucessfull "socialist" country I would choose sweden as an example, the market and many other aspect of life are controlled by the state, more than in many other european countries. Still sweden ranks very high on most rankings even though it is by no means a lucky country when it comes to natural resources (like it smaller brother and even more communistic norway). Of course comparing two countries with a total inhabitants of less than 15 mill with the US is perhaps meaningless but I did it, sue me..