--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 2, 2008, at 11:26 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > In the thread I started titled "a well regulated militia", > > I suggested that there be "a civilian paramilitary that is > > just as strong as the regular military" and asked: "Doesn't > that sound like a good idea?" > > > > The Obama-bots all chimed in to snicker and say how they're > > all opposed: Rick, Bob, Gullible Fool, Vajina, Nelson. > > > > BUT IT'S BARACK OBAMA WHO IS SUGGESTING A CIVILIAN > > PARAMILITARY!!!! > > Actually Obama never used the word paramilitary.
Correct. His term was "civilian national security force." > You might want to listen to it again. And it's way too brief > to hear the context. Since there are no other references, > it's hard to know if this quote from months ago actually > represents the current policy stand of future President Obama. There's nothing to that effect on his Web site. (Although it's interesting that it doesn't seem to bother Vaj that Obama could have made a proposal in a speech in July that somehow no longer represents his his policy stand in October, only four months later.) Actually, in context, the snippet in the clip Shemp cited is a reference back to a whole long laundry list of service-type opportunities (paid and volunteer) he'd just described that he plans to institute, none of them military in nature, but which he views as essential to national security (health care, education, infrastructure, housing, environmental cleanup, veteran support, foreign service, etc.). By "civilian national security force," he meant all those different service activities taken as a whole, not a single formalized force, and certainly not a "paramilitary" force. It was, um, something of a metaphor. In other words, it's Shemp who has been suckered (or who is trying to sucker us). The whole speech is here; the relevant part starts at around 16 minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw
