Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

Originally posted by -zeropoint-
Stop spamming your own damn thread, desperate child. There's no threat to be warning and fear-mongering about, stop such non-sense. I really thought Americans were more realistic and mature in their conduct, it just seems that it's the neocons who can't accept what is, we've found our problem. The minute I saw it was coming from a rightest Republican, I knew it was meaningless. Stop producing fear-mongering negative energy, the man isn't inaugurated yet for Pete's living sake.

Chill out, no need to get heated over this. I'm not desperate at all. You must be an Obama supporter. Sorry your buddy is going to be worse then bush. Bush will look like Jesus compared to what Obama is going to do. You wanted change your gonna get it. Thanks America.

Obama is not going to change a thing.

The conspiracies on this site are more meaningless then this warning.

Not to get off topic but on November 29 there will be protests in Washington, DC against Obama.

reply to post by Chronogoblin


wow.... The police force is locally controlled, but you are right. Police daily violate our rights because they are taught to. We need to do something about that too.

He is talking about a national police force which is constitutionally illegal. Hell, even the military isn't nationally controlled. They are state run (technically and constitutionally) and are called upon by the national government in a time of need.

He woud probably fund it with money that would normally go to the military. He will weaken the military with a national ppolice force put into effect by executive order that he will have complete control over with NO oversight from congress....

Just watch...
Jaden

reply to post by NobodiesClone63


Look, this is really simple. The problem with the military is that they swear an oath to defend the constitution oagainst all enemies foreign and domestic. That's enemies of the constitution, not the governement. I'll bet a hundred dollars to a donut that this civilian security force will take an oath to the government and NOT the constitution and possibly to the presidency alone...

Jaden

reply to post by The Revealer





I just don't see any evidence to back your claims. Wouldn't it be wiser to wait until something is actually implemented before leveling accusations and playing the role of soothsayer?

BTW, regarding a protest, apparently people didn't see how he dismantled Hillary and McCain who spent 75% of their campaign time protesting Obama. Any protest will simply serve to further empower him.

reply to post by tyranny22


Bush, Bush, Bush. If Obama didn't support the war from the get-go, why did he take the unsual move of not voting "present" and vote to support the Patriot Act? If he wants us out of the Middle East ASAP, why the need to continue to spy on us?

Why is BHO's Truth Squad still at work posting on Conservative-leaning blogs? We will never change the minds of Truth Squad zombies; they are immune to reason.

For those playing the race card at any questioning of BHO's motives, your prejudice toward your fellow Americans is bias and a projection of your own motives. I for one, love the African race. For those of you spouting these charges while BHO sat in a Black Liberation church for 20 years, you should be ashamed of yourselves, if you had any such emotion.

Originally posted by ORIPEIA
Wouldn't it be wiser to wait until something is actually implemented before leveling accusations and playing the role of soothsayer?

While your question was not directed at me, I feel compelled to answer.

I don't think it is wise to wait until something potentially irreversible, until whoever the next president after Obama gets into office anyway, is implemented. It is our right and our duty to question any potential policies put forth by congress, the president, or the president-elect that we feel may be bad for the country. A comparison of history and our current reality shows too many similarities and coincidences for the dissenters to just roll over and wait for the worst to happen.

Case in point: Bush's policies and executive orders. Many people here disagree and disapprove of many of the things he has done while in office. Would it not have been better if those policies and orders had been questioned and the worst of them stopped in their tracks before they were in place? Or are we better off now since they weren't stopped before it was too late?

I have a question:

After the event that have transpired in the past 8 years... is it okay to laugh at this? It's a joke right?

I love it.... this thread is a glimpse into the future.

I make valid points, valid comparisons, but I have no valid point. I am simply a racist. That must be it after I spoke out against Obama's policies.

One question.... would I still be a racist if I were to tell you I am a person of color and not some "white redneck"? Would it matter if I told you that I am not a Republican either?


Sorry to burst the bubble of such sound arguments. I am a person of color. I was born over seas on a US Military Base. My mother is/was an immigrant and my father a US Citizen born and raised. I grew up here in the US of A. I guess all of you must be right..I make no valid points at all. I am simply a bitter Republican Racist who is angry that a Black man holds the highest seat in our Country...or I am just mad that my party lost. That must be it! That sounds so much more sound than ANYTHING else I have said

Well before this gem of a statement, this loony tune congressman was best known for introducing a bill to prevent soldiers from obtaining pornography. With our troops serving and dieing oversees his greatest concern was if they might be touching themselves.

en.wikipedia.org...
Broun introduced a military anti-pornography bill into the House of Representatives. The bill is meant to stem the sales of pornography on U.S military installations. This bill basically notes that the there should be no loopholes in a former piece of legislation (Title 10 of the United States code), effectively banning military personnel from viewing pornography (Now entitled the "Military Honor and Decency Act").

FYI...This is about not relying ONLY on the military for "national" security.
Like expecting the National Guard to help with Katrina...when they are all in Iraq and Afghanistan.
.....
Broun cited a July 2008 speech by Obama in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate had said, "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the 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." A spokesman for Obama indicated that he had been referring to a civilian reserve corps intended to handle postwar reconstruction efforts, such as rebuilding infrastructure. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS ENDORSED THIS IDEA.

reply to post by MrWendal


Perhaps your problem is that most people don't consider this to be a valid point:

Many people know Hitler as some evil evil little bitter control freak man who wanted to rule the world.

What many do not realize right away was that

a) Hitler was an elected Official.

b) Very VERY Charismatic.

c) At first the people LOVED him and his message of hope, freedom, and prosperity

d) Was an outstanding Public Speaker

e) Also a very inspirational speaker

Hitler sold the public on everything he did. It was all done within a legal frame work at that time. It was not until it was far too late that people saw the evil.

It's called a non-sequitur, and it's an argumentative fallacy (actually, it violates at least 3 argument rules).

reply to post by Jenna




Preemption is a sound strategy. That being said, Bush was already in office when these issues took hold and the populace was still in "terrorist fear mode". That is not the case at present.

Everyone is right to continue to point out what we have lived under for the last 8 years.... but when will some of you see that Obama's policies are nothing more than the next phase and an extension of Bush's policies? There is an agenda being followed. It makes no difference that a "Democrat" is now in office. It would not matter if a Republican was in office. We would be seeing the same thing. Stop dwelling on makes you different from the next guy and start seeing the bigger picture. As long as people keep fighting amongst themselves over what makes them different ie; Republican, Democrat, black, white, latino, left, right, left of center; all you are doing is distracting yourself and missing the bigger picture. Maybe Ignorance is truly bliss.

Originally posted by maybereal11
A spokesman for Obama indicated that he had been referring to a civilian reserve corps intended to handle postwar reconstruction efforts, such as rebuilding infrastructure. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS ENDORSED THIS IDEA.

We already have millions of people in this country who have and would take time away from their jobs and families to assist those who needed help rebuilding after natural disasters.

What postwar reconstruction efforts? We aren't having a war here. And if this is some indication that we are going to have a war here on US soil, that is entirely new can of worms.

There are already many companies who have been rebuilding things in Iraq and Afghanistan among other places. Why do we need one ran by the government as well that we cannot afford to pay for?

And with Bush's record of brilliant ideas and wonderful executive orders and policies, his endorsement means what exactly?

edit to fix bold tags

[edit on 11-11-2008 by Jenna]

reply to post by Irish M1ck


It may not be valid to you, and I am sure it is not when taken all by itself, however combine that with the topic at hand at the time it was being discussed and maybe you will see it for what it is. A simple comparison and history lesson.

ETA: and seriously...of the numerous post I have made on this thread, you pick that one as your example? I do have 3 pages of post in this thread alone. Feel free to start on the end of page 3. I believe we were at 6 or 7 before I went to bed.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by MrWendal]

reply to post by ORIPEIA


Exactly. He is not in office yet. These policies he has been proposing have not been set in stone yet. We should be watching what he is proposing and at least attempting to put a stop to the ones that are going to lead us down the wrong path as a country. Not sitting idly by and hoping that everything will turn out ok.

reply to post by MrWendal


Okay. You show me the population he wants to enslave and exterminate, and I'll shake your hand on it.

*Edit:

And I chose that post because it about sums this thread up, does it not? A jump to conclusion that just because Obama is charismatic and said something about a civilian force that he about to be Hitler?

A lot of things Bush did were synonymous to tactics taken by the Nazi's, but I haven't seem him hijack this country just yet.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by maybereal11
A spokesman for Obama indicated that he had been referring to a civilian reserve corps intended to handle postwar reconstruction efforts, such as rebuilding infrastructure. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS ENDORSED THIS IDEA.

There are already many companies who have been rebuilding things in Iraq and Afghanistan among other places. Why do we need one ran by the government as well that we cannot afford to pay for?
[edit on 11-11-2008 by Jenna]

"civilian reserve corps "

reply to post by Irish M1ck


Let's wait and see what the rest of his policies turn into and I will be more than happy too.

However I see a bigger picture at play here. I never said Obama would be "The One", what I am saying is we are continuing to see more ground work being laid down. Just like Bush was laying down a foundation... we are seeing the same from Obama. Will he be the one who pulls the trigger? That I do not know, but I do know a trigger was meant to be pulled. It is not there for simple decoration.

reply to post by maybereal11


I'm sorry was that supposed to answer something? It didn't. He said Civilian Security Force regardless of how his lackeys try to spin it.

reply to post by MrWendal


You know, I'll agree to that. I think we have all been shown that the powers of the Executive Branch appear to extend much further than we ever knew. It is something to keep into consideration for change.

An amendment may very well be in order.

reply to post by Jenna


Can you detail what this force would be? Who would be in it, what would their responsibilities be? What would be the pros/cons?

Just wondering. Before I start taking information from someone I like to know that they actually understand what they are talking about.