The Problem with Guilt by Association (warning: political)

flip-flop · Post by **flip-flop** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:07 am

I don't like Keith Olbermann. He is a bit over the top and intense for me. But I must say ... I found this very interesting.

DO I think McCain is anti-American? NO NO NO
My point is guilt by association is not the best political tactic.

Edited to add comment from the McCain camp:

McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb confirmed the veracity of the report, but said that it was beside the point.

Now, I am going off to take my kid to the doc and enjoy Halloween. Do not assume my lack of response ... if there is one from the other side is because I have retreated/gone into hiding/got run of the porch by the big dogs/or got overwhelmed by the HEAT.

loria · Post by **loria** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:24 am

i am not an olberman fan either--but in this case he brings up a very good point (as do you)
thanks for posting

soxfan22 · Post by **soxfan22** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:32 am

Keith Olbermann is a communist. And his partner in crime, Chris Mathews, is still getting chills up his legs when he hears Obama speak.

You guys supporting Obama are akin to the Jews on the trains headed to Auschwitz. You think everything will be okay...You think you're "just going away for a bit"...You think you'll be going home soon...You think your house will still be there when you get there...All of this despite the obvious intentions of the leader leading you down the primrose path. There, I said it. A bunch of sheep, led by Keith Olbermann.

The problem is, you're taking all of us with you.

If you cannot see that this man is friends with many, many suspect people who do not have the interests of this country at heart, well then flip, I would say you are blinided by your passion to see that abortion remains legal. Afterall, that is your issue, right?

BTW - Did you hear Obama say on Wednesday that he will put together a civilian national security force that is just as well funded as our military? Why? Because according to him, we cannot continue to "count" on our military to achieve our national security needs. What the hell does THAT mean? Take look (and pay special attention to the lemmings in the background..."Oh yes, great one":

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Tt2yGzHfy7s&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Tt2yGzHfy7s&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

flip-flop · Post by **flip-flop** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:35 am

soxfan22 wrote:Keith Olbermann is a communist.

I'll go with McCain's spokesman's response. Sir, that is beside the point.

Bomb bomb bomb bomb iran (insert creepy smile here).

Over and out!

Have a great day all!

loria · Post by **loria** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:35 am

soxfan
you are way out of line equating this election with the holocaust.

soxfan22 · Post by **soxfan22** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:39 am

loria wrote:soxfan
you are way out of line equating this election with the holocaust.

Okay. Did you watch the video? What is a civilian force? Hitler had one of those too. This man wants to take our country, and completely turn it on it's head. And you are blind to it. That is the comparison I was making.

flip-flop · Post by **flip-flop** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:39 am

So we shouldn't count on additional measures to protect our national security other than the military ... did he say we'll do away with the military and I missed it?

Unless I am confused I think there are many agencies and measures in place in ADDITION to our military to ensure our national security. Don't forget one of the biggest findings post-911 were the horrific barriers to the sharing of info between agencies -- FBI, local law enforcement, the CIA etc.

jmq · Post by **jmq** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:41 am

Wouldve been much more effective with less ranting and forced quips. The over the top stuff dilutes the message. But that's his style.

Talk about "connecting the dots" though...

And do they fully vet ANYTHING over there in the McCain camp?

loria · Post by **loria** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:19 am

soxfan22 wrote:
loria wrote:soxfan
you are way out of line equating this election with the holocaust.
Okay. Did you watch the video? What is a civilian force? Hitler had one of those too. This man wants to take our country, and completely turn it on it's head. And you are blind to it. That is the comparison I was making.

ummmmm wow. are you that daft? you are the dangerous one. This is a few second snippet of a half hour talk--july 2nd in colorado springs
he is talking about expanding the peace corps and americorps.
maybe YOU should see the video IN IT'S ENTIRETY . like i said before soundbites and obfuscation--nothing very considered or analyzed.
oh and

wait for it............<<<Drumroll>>>>

YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY QUESTION!!!! TA DA!!!

jmq · Post by **jmq** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:39 am

Oh my, where do we begin with this one.

First off, the speech wasn’t made 2 days ago. And those sheep in the background? Veterans. It was a speech made July 2, 2008 calling America to national service, when Obama proposed “a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military. OH MY GOD.

This has prompted some in the blogosphere (and, surprise! now here on the forum!) to raise the specter of a huge new domestic paramilitary organization. Others suggest that he may have been talking about our “current non-military security agencies - FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, DHS, etc.”

If you listen to the whole speech - or even the couple minutes before his security force proposal - it’s clear that Obama is talking about expanding a range of domestic and international agencies such as AmeriCorps, the Foreign Service, the Peace Corps, etc.

What he said in the speech right before the youtube clip posted by Sox:

“Just as we must value and encourage military service across our society, we must honor and expand other opportunities to serve. Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but it also depends on the teacher in East LA, or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia. . . .

Today, AmeriCorps – our nation’s network of local, state and national service programs – has 75,000 slots…These programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America’s greatest resource – our citizens…Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer.

So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

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.”

The last two “controversial sentences” that were TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT in the video clip were not in the transcript of Obama’s prepared remarks.

Obviously, it would have been better if he stuck to his transcript, because he is figuratively speaking here to make a point. Also obvious he doesn’t literally mean that there needs to be a fundamental restructuring of our national government with civilian service organizations so that is becomes as important and as expensive as our military, you know, maybe redesign M-1 tanks so they can be used to pick up trash.

Don’t you think if this was REALLY a fundamental plank in his platform that much more would’ve been made of it in the 4 months since it was said? That maybe, just maybe, the key part of this proposal is to "Require 100 Hours of Service in College" and grant a $4,000 tax credit to college students for 100 hours of community service work???

Wow wee. I am truly saddened for those that believe this nonsense. I just hope that the rest of us aren’t as gullible, let alone equate those who dont believe it with those being sent to death duing the holocaust. Truly and utterly astounding and offensive.

Calling Dr. Jekyll, calling Dr. Jekyll, Mr. Hyde is on the loose again at VIOL!

hugo · Post by **hugo** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:25 am

Soxfan, I've been making excuses for you. Oh, he's young. Oh, he's scared of change because all he's ever known is a comfortable, dollar-centered self-satisfied existence. As a parent, I can feel pretty passionate about security, too. But do you really believe there can be a comparison between Obama and HITLER? YOU terrify ME! Especially the idea that there more of you out there. Only a few steps away from the skinheads in their white tuxedos. No, I'm not calling you a racist, just WAY out there.

soxfan22 · Post by **soxfan22** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:31 am

If you listen to the whole speech - or even the couple minutes before his security force proposal - it’s clear that Obama is talking about expanding a range of domestic and international agencies such as AmeriCorps, the Foreign Service, the Peace Corps, etc.

His own words were "Civilian National Security Force". For all the good work the Peace Corps does, they do not strike me as a "National Security Force".

Today, AmeriCorps – our nation’s network of local, state and national service programs – has 75,000 slots…These programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America’s greatest resource – our citizens…Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer.

As long as they're not clinging to their guns or religion, and so long as they're not questioning Obama (see: the two news stations blacklisted by the Obama campaign for asking "tough" questions, and now the three major newspapers who have been thrown off the Obama campaign's plane - all three of which recently endorsed McCain).

And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

All noble efforts, for sure. But who's paying? I might be inclined to believe him if he weren't committed to sending $800 billion of our tax dollars over to the UN to fight world poverty (ie Obama's cousin Odinga's Kenya). How did the Oil For Food program work out again. How did the UN perform in Rwanda? How successful were they in executing the 16 resolutions on Saddam? How about Darfur? Forgive me if I'm less than confident in the UN's ability to spend my tax dollars responsibly.

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.”

See, this just harkens back to the time when Democrats were telling us that terrorism isn't a military problem, it is a policing problem. Even if that is what he wants to do, he wants this civilian force to be "just as well funded as the military".

Here's a quick look at the 2009 DoD budget:

Supports military readiness. $515.4 billion for the Department of Defense’s (DOD's) base budget—a nearly 74-percent increase over 2001. This funding will ensure a high level of military readiness by sustaining regular and irregular warfighting capabilities, responding to evolving threats, and supporting our servicemembers and their families.

Provides resources for the Global War on Terror. $70.0 billion as an emergency allowance to support activities related to the Global War on Terror into 2009. The Administration will request additional funding once the specific needs of our troops are better known.[/b]

By my math, that's roughly $600 billion at minimum allocated to the DoD. $200 billion less than Obama wants to send to the UN.

Obviously, it would have been better if he stuck to his transcript, because he is figuratively speaking here to make a point.

Obama is always better when he stays on script. it is why, half way through the general election campaign, he had to bring his teleprompter back out on the trail with him. There will be no teleprompter when he sits down with Chavez and Ahkmadinejad without preconditions.

Don’t you think if this was REALLY a fundamental plank in his platform that much more would’ve been made of it in the 4 months since it was said?

By whom? Who in the media can we depend on for any type of legitimate questioning of their candidate? You saw what happened to the two news stations and the three major newspapers. Maybe the LA Times would've told us.

That maybe, just maybe, the key part of this proposal is to "Require 100 Hours of Service in College" and grant a $4,000 tax credit to college students for 100 hours of community service work???

Again, with the requiring. Who is he to require anything?

jmq · Post by **jmq** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:37 am

Alrighty then. I consider myself corrected. Just glad that I'm not the one that is so desperate as to equate Obama with Hitler and to belittle peoples opinions by evoking images from the holocaust.

Lulu76 · Post by **Lulu76** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:53 am

If someone would've given me $4000 grand a year to pay for college, they could've required just about anything from me. I did 100 hours of community service easily without the four grand and I had too many bills when I graduated to be an Americorps VISTA, so this program sounds great to me.

I wonder if I could use it to pay for my post-grad work.

All you have to do is watch about 10 minutes of Fox News or read one email from my right-wing friend to know that while Obama is instilling hope in people, the Republicans are playing on everyone's worst fears. Look how far Giuliani got with "I'm the September 11th guy." Maybe that's why Michelle Obama said that Barack's campaign made her proud to be an American.

flip-flop · Post by **flip-flop** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:56 am

soxfan22 wrote:
flip, I would say you are blinided by your passion to see that abortion remains legal. Afterall, that is your issue, right?

No sir, that is not at all my issue. MY ISSUE is that women's health never be put in quotation marks as a hypothetical, black and white, EXCUSE for abortion. And that a legislator's opinion is never to take precedence over a doctor's, or more importantly, the opinion of THE WOMAN CARRYING THE CHILD. Again, grow a uterus and we'll talk.

There is a middle ground. Those of us fervently defending the right to choice don't do so because we like killing babies. We do so because we see a bigger issue. That the world is not so black and white and simple as you would choose to portray it. We are not fear mongers.

I am not blinded by anything. My eyes are wide open.

I am passionate that voices like yours are drawn out and heard loud and clear, because I think you do yourself, and your cause, far more harm than my passion ever could.

usvi-on-line

Login or Register with your Facebook account

The Problem with Guilt by Association (warning: political)

The Problem with Guilt by Association (warning: political)